ae a DUN , 
@Qr5 2 
C6 4 


REPRINTED FROM 


THE AMERICAN JOURNAL 


OF 


SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES 


(CONTINUING HEBRAICA) 


Votume XXXI APRIL 1915 NumBeEr 3 


THE EARLIEST BOOK OF KINGS 


By A. T. OLMSTEAD 
University of Missouri 


In a previous study,! the fundamental principles which must be 
followed by the historian in solving source problems with the aid 
of textual criticism were laid down. — As illustration of this procedure, 
there was investigated a group of allied problems in the higher 
criticism of the Old Testament. Among the results secured was the 
discovery that the so-called “‘Septuagint”’ of at least the latter por- 
tion of Kings must be attributed to Theodotion and that the Greek 
of the Book of Kings as a whole is distinctly late. It was also 
pointed out that a notable fragment of the earliest Greek translation, 
the one we may with some degree of accuracy call the Septuagint, 
is found in the alternate Jeroboam story which is given in the 
majority of our Greek manuscripts.2 ‘By a comparison of this story 
with its later forms, and especially by tracing their gradual growth, 
it was proved that many of the most characteristic expressions of 


1AJSL, XXX, 1f. 


2The Ethiopic version was not available at the time the translation was made. 
Its reading, ‘‘ According as the people spake unto thee, speak thou unto the people,’’ 
is clearly better than the reading of the Lucianic text there used. I have also been 
able to utilize the readings from the margin of the Leon codex in C. Vercellone, Variae 
Lectiones, Romae, 1864. Here is given with a fair degree of completeness the first half 
of the story with no important variants. The latter half is mixed, as is the Lucifer text. 
The first part of the story of the child is given in the earlier form; the second closely 
follows the Massoretic text so far as we can make out from the scanty fragments. 


169 


170 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


the so-called ‘“‘Deuteronomistic”’ editor of Kings were in reality 
post-Septuagintal in date. In conclusion it was shown that all 
this argued strongly in favor of a post-Septuagintal date for the 
last general revision of Kings and that the first step toward a solu- 
tion of the source problems of that book lay in securing the pre- 
Septuagintal, that is, the pre-“‘ Deuteronomistic” edition of Kings. 

This last conclusion, while logically following the data presented, 
was seemingly based on rather scanty data. It is therefore not at 
all surprising that its probability has been challenged by scholars 
who have found no difficulty in accepting the -Theodotionic author- 
ship of a part of the Greek Kings or the more primitive character 
of the alternate Jeroboam story. It is to meet these objections 
and to discuss in detail the data by means of which we may determine 
the earliest edition we may rightly call the Book oF Kings that this 
study has been written.! 

Our tools are the various tranelanions and recensions of transla- 
tions that have been made from the Hebrew text. At first sight, the 
enormous mass of manuscript material is appalling in its complexity. 
More careful study shows that the broader lines which it is our busi- 
ness to follow are comparatively simple. Viewed in the light of 
our problem, we may briefly say that their history is that of progress 
from an original Hebrew text, translated into Greek about the second 
century B.c., and toward conformity with a later Hebrew text, itself 
constantly changing, until it was finally fixed in our present Mas- 
soretic edition. It is no difficult task to assign to each text its rela- 
tive stage in this process of development.? 

The textual history of Kings is divided into three sharply defined — 
periods with a group of manuscripts or translations for each. The 
first gives our nearest approximation to the original Septuagint, 
though this, as we shall see, is none too close. It is best represented 
by Codex B and may be called the B text. Codex B is by no means 


1 The less accessible books have been consulted in the libraries of Columbia Uni- 
versity and of the Union Theological Seminary. Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, is to be 
found in the New York Public Library. Much of the preliminary work on the Greek 
text was carried on by Mrs. Olmstead. The Greek editions and texts of III-IV King- 


doms vary widely among themselves and from the Hebrew in their verse and chapter | 


numeration. As this study is intended to appeal equally to those who know no Hebrew, 
the English numeration, which in general is also that of the Hebrew, has been followed. 

2 This process is seen at its best in the additions to Jeremiah, later to be discussed 
by Mrs. Olmstead. 


THE EARLIEST Book oF KINGS 171 


an ideal manuscript. It is full of minor scribal errors and its proper 
names are especially untrustworthy. Often a particular reading 
will be better given elsewhere, although in general it gives us the 
text on which Origen based his Hexapla.t Most important for our 
present investigation, it is practically free from the hexaplaric 
additions.” 

To secure a text worthy of being placed by the side of Codex B, 
we must go, not to any Greek manuscript, but to the earliest transla- 
tion into the Ethiopic, represented by manuscripts A and 8.°. There 
has been much discussion as to the date and value of the Ethiopic 
versions. Whatever may be true of it in other books,* in Kings it 
is equaled only by Codex B and in a few cases it is superior even to 
that manuscript. 2 

Still better than these two was the original used as a base for 
the Lucianic text. Unfortunately, this good text was “‘revised”’ 
by Lucian and conformed in large part to the Hebrew. Neverthe- 
less, much of the older text was left unchanged, and agreements 
between this older stratum, Codex B, and the Ethiopic fix beyond 
doubt the B text. The value of the Lucianic text is especially 
proved for individual readings, instances of which we have found 
in our reconstruction of the Jeroboam story. It is represented by a 
considerable number of manuscripts e of which has any value 
save as they assist us to reconstr xt.6 All but one’ have, 


1 Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 130. 

2 Cases like II Kings 15:38, where the Codex A in a shorter text, 
are rare, and still more rare are additions of 

3 Note the comparatively unimportant character of the variants between EthSA and 
G Bin Dillmann, Vet. Test. Aeth., II, 2, 2, 6 ff., 51 ff. A detailed study of these variation 
shows that the agreements are distributed quite impartially among all the groups. For 
example, there are three variations from B in II Kings 16:14. In reading rode xadxouv 
Ovo.acrtypiov, the Ethiopic agrees with the Lucianic text, and, with different order, with 
the Syro-Hexaplar and Armenian. Mere@yxev ato mpocwmov it has in common with Sym- 
machus. E@yxev is also found in the so-called Hebrew, Symmachus, the Quinta, MSS 52, 
55, etc., and Armenian. In 16:3, the addition IepoBoapn viov NaBar is shared with AN and 
the two groups they usually lead. Agreement of the Ethiopic with one or more of these 
groups against B as a rule must mean that this reading is correct. 

4In the Pentateuch, its best MSS have regularly the shortest text; cf. also McLean, 
in Swete, Introduction, 109 f. 

5 K.g., I Kings, 12:24¢. Note its constant use by Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Siudien, III. 

6 Best in the palimpsest Vat. Syr. 162 and HP 93, somewhat less purely in o (82), 
fairly exactly in b’ (19), 6 (108), 127, Vat. Gr. 2115. lLucianic readings are found also 
in the groups d (44) and p (106); i (56) and 246; 1 (59); d, (61); 71, 245; 123; 158; 
243 marg.; cf. for elaborate discussion, Rahlfs, op. cit. 


7123. 






172 THErE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


it should be noted, the Jeroboam story. Here too belongs the Old 
Latin, whether it is really Old Latin or merely a later Lucianic 
translation. Whatever its history, there is no doubt that it often 
gives good readings. It is therefore all the more pity that only 
fragmentary remains have survived and that these remains are 
hidden away in books difficult to secure. 

The second period is represented by those manuscripts which 
furnish a text intermediate between that of the B group and that 
presented in our modern Hebrew Bibles. In the Greek the most 
important class is that which we may call N from its most important 
manuscript.2 Agreements with B are by no means rare and all but 
one® have the Jeroboam story. Much later in text is the R class.* 
Of its manuscripts, some have Lucianic elements,® and there is a 
group which has the Jeroboam story and a fair number of agreements 
with Codex B.6 Those which do not have the story have rarely an 
agreement with that manuscript.’ 

To the same intermediate period belongs the recension of the 
Ethiopic, represented by the manuscripts BCDMR, which is still 
in use by the Abyssinian church and which is commonly listed as 
k. There are far more agreements with our present Hebrew than 
with the B text and it ranks about with the best of the R class in 
Greek.’ Its chief value to us lies in proving the extremely late date 
of insertion of any passage which is not found in its manuscripts. 

The manuscripts which give us a text practically identical with 
that of our present Hebrew Bibles make up the third group. Its 
one great representative in the Greek is Codex A from which we may 
name it the A text. Codex A has practically all the plus of the 
Hebrew, but a considerable number of good readings—some superior 
to those of B—have survived in the earlier portions. In our investi- 


1 Cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., III, 153, 158 ff. 
2N,h (55), 119, y (121), 248, 244, possibly also 64. 
3 y, which is often hexaplaric; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 6. 


4d (44), e (52), 70, 74, 92, p: (106), 107, a (120)3) 123, 125, £134); 144 zoo 
Cat. Niceph. d, 74, p, t may be Hesychian as, according to McLean, Jour. Theol. 
- Stud., II, 306, they are in earlier books. 


5d, p, 123. 

6e, 70, 107, 125. 

7 Cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 7. 

8 Dillmann, op. cit., II, 1, 2, 4 ff.; cf. especially II, 2, 2, 45. 


8 


THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 173 


gation it has no value save as a convenient presentation in Greek 
of the later Hebrew text.! 

The student of the Septuagint edition of Holmes and Parsons 
constantly notes that the Armenian manuscript they used agrees 
with A and 247, even when they have no other support. The 
printed editions are also close to the present Hebrew.2 Whether 
the Armenian will ever be of any use is uncertain until we have colla- 
tions of the many ancient manuscripts known to exist in various 
oriental libraries. Hexaplaric marks are found occasionally in 
the manuscripts. It is generally assumed that its hexaplaric char- 
acter is due to direct use of Origen’s work, but the recognized agree- 
ments with the Syro-Hexaplar make later contamination from that 
source a possibility. If this be true, pre-hexaplaric manuscripts 
may yet be found. 

The Syro-Hexaplar on Kings is fortunately well preserved. It 
is indeed inferior to Codex Q which one may use for the Prophets, 
for important passages, such as the Jeroboam story, which should be 
obelized, are entirely omitted, and the ascriptions on the margins 
are not always to be dependéd upon.’ Its chief value to us is that 
its use of the asterisk confirms other and more trustworthy witnesses 
in proving that the passages thus marked were omitted in our earliest 
text.4 Then, too, the presence or absence of a passage in one of the 
three later translators gives us a clue as to the approximate date of 
its insertion. . 

Equally: close to the present received text is Codex E of the 
Ethiopic,® and the same is true of the Peshitto, even if pre-Christian, 
of the Vulgate, the Targums, and the Talmudical quotations. From 
the standpoint of interpretation, all are of great value, but they 
all represent too late a period in the history of the text to be of the 
slightest value in our present investigation. 


1247 is a virtual duplicate of A. M, k (58), and 243 are also hexaplaric in char- 
acter, at least in part; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 32 ff. 


2 Oskan’s text has been corrected to the Vulgate. Zohrabian’s edition was based 
on several MSS, but no variants are given. For the version, cf. Artasches Abeghian, 
Vorfragen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der altarmenischen Bibeliibersetzungen, Marburg, 
1906; Conybeare, Hastings Dict. Bible, s.v. 


3O0f. AJSL, XXX, 10 ff.; Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 31, n. 6. 
4 The data in Field’s Hezapla should be checked by Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca. 
& Of. Dillmann, op. cté., II; 1; 2; 5. 


174 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


It is the B text, then, which we must take as the basis of our 
studies. But this B text by no means gives us the actual “‘Sep- 
tuagint.”” Rather, it is a hodgepodge in which are found fragments 
of a number of different translations. The last of these has already 
been proved to be that of Theodotion.! Its extent was pointed out 
by Thackeray? as II Sam. 11:2—I Kings 2:11 and I Kings, chap. 22 
with all of II Kings. The section between was recognized as form- 
ing one group, though the possibility of its composite character 
was noted. A closer study of this section is now demanded.’ 

For information as to the character of the Greek texts of Kings, 
as well as of the underlying Hebrew, we turn to the so-called “parallel 
narratives.”’ Each is given twice in the B text, is given in different 
locations and with different Greek, and often there are serious differ- 
ences in the underlying Hebrew. Evidently, the B text is a sort 
of hexaplaric text before the Hexapla of Origen, where all the known 
material was collected without regard to possible contradictions. 
It is clear that, of any variant stories, only one can be correct, and 
the same must be true of the rival underlying texts. 

Which of the two Jeroboam stories is the earlier we have already 
seen. Turning now to the first inserted section in the B text, we 
find it to consist of the three sections, I Kings 2:35a-k; 35l-o; 
46a-l. Though usually grouped together, the three are quite 


1AJSL, XXX, 5 ff. 2 Jour. Theol. Stud., VIII, 263. 


3It has already been pointed out that, of the comparatively few cases where the 
Ethiopic disagrees with Codex B, nearly all have independent support and are probable. 
We may note here a number of Theodotionic readings which are not found in the Ethiopic. 
The most striking omission is that of spovogwvos, so characteristic of that translator, in 
IL Kings 24:2. There are also a number of cases where the Theodotionic transliteration 
is missing. In 4:39, apwwé has been supplanted by aypia Aayava, the Lucianic reading 
as shown by Theod. Quaest. in 4 Reg. 522, quoted Field, ad loc.; 8:15, to orpoua for 
paxBap, following Aquila, Symmachus, and Lucian, as against the ‘‘ Hebrew,’’ the LXX, 
and Theodotion; 9:13, ov xaOyTo emt twv for the em to yapeun tov Of LXX and Theodotion; 
25:12, yewpyoves for afr with Lucian and the Armenian. It is quite possible to explain 
these as corrections from the Lucianic. At the same time, it should not be forgotten 
that another explanation might be that these are pre-Theodotionic readings, and this 
would be supported by the generally early character of the Ethiopic. Note also the 
number of cases where Lucian agrees with Quinta against these transliterations; cf. 
Rahlfs, op. cit., 248. Is II Kings a Quinta slightly revised by Theodotion? Note the 
incompleteness of revision in I Kings 22; cf. Rahlfs, op. cit., 266, n. 3. 


4 How much damage may be caused by this failure to distinguish between the 
different sections is shown by the case of Kittel, who, after following Klostermann in 
his belief that the Shimei ‘‘doublet’’ was in place and of value (Gesch., II, 47), gave 
it up because ‘‘es geht nicht dieses Stiick aus dem ganzen Zusatz herauszureissen’”’ 
(Kénige, 23). Of course that is just what the sharp differences in the Greek force us 


to do! 


& 


THe Earutest Book or KINGS 175 


different in character as they are in origin. This difference at once 
becomes apparent when we note that the first two sections are in 
Codex A and in the Syro-Hexaplar under the obelus, while the third 
is witnessed only by the B text. On the other hand, the first and 
third are mere epitomes which have been swept into the all-embracing 
B text, though why the first should be also in A is an unsolved prob- 
lem. ‘The second is the only real duplicate and its Hebrew original 
is not far distant from that of I Kings 2:8f. Our passage begins, 
“And while David was yet alive, he commanded Solomon, saying,”’ 
a natural introduction to what is an entirely new paragraph in this 
place. Otherwise, there is no certain disagreement between the two 
accounts. The agreement in language of the two Greek passages 
is so close that clearly one is the revision of the other. Yet there are 
serious differences in language: ovros=kat autos; ev n nuepa=TN 
nuepa n; KaTreBarveyv=KareBn; €ls amavTny mor=eELs am. mou; Em TOV 
Iopdavnv=ers 7. 1.; Kata Tov Kuplou=ev Kuplw; PJavaTrwinoerar=Oava- 
TWOW GE; VUY UNn=oU UN; Ppovios=aodos e.. A mere glance is suffi- 
cient to show that the former, the language of the ‘“‘duplicate,”’ is 
idiomatic Greek, the other a revision where elegance is sacrificed 
for literalness, as, for example, in the oath ev xvpiw. Furthermore, 
our account is most naturally continued by the verses which imme- 
diately follow, both in the Greek and in the Hebrew. The other, 
like the Hebrew it represents, is a mere torso as it stands, and, what 
is of no little importance, the Shimei story as a whole has no con- 
nection with the stories of the other executions.! So far at least as 
the Greek is concerned, it can be absolutely proved that vss. 36-46, 
the second half of the story, even in the Massoretic text, belong, 
not to the first half according to that text, but to the so-called 
duplicate. This is proved, not only by the good Greek and the free 
character of the translation in each, but more particularly by the 
recurrence of the swearing Kara Tov xupvov in vs. 42 as well as by the 
ev n nuepa of the same verse, for these expressions are paralleled in 
vss. 35n and 35m respectively, and the latter occurs only in these 
two places. Nor does this Greek representative of the Hebrew in 
position agree with it in content. It adds “it shall come to pass,” 
in vs. 37; ‘“‘and the king made him swear on that day,” ahd.; 


# 1 Cf. Benzinger, Kénige, 10. 


176 Tur AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


“saying,” vs. 41; substitutes “three years” for ‘““many days,” vs. 


38;! ‘““Amasa’’ for ‘‘Maacah,” vs. 39; and omits “and thou saidest 
unto me ‘The saying I have heard is good,’ ”’ vs. 42; and “‘so that 
he died,”’ vs. 46. It is obvious that we have here a quite different 
recension from the one given in our present Old Testaments. 

But this is not all. Thackeray has already shown that we have 
a new Greek translation begun after 2:11, and this explains what 
has happened. One of the translations has been used to supplement 
the other and, in the process of joining, the editor has not noticed 
that a part has been repeated.? Nor is this comparison without 
further consequences of great.importance. Our earlier and therefore 
better text disagrees in weighty cases from that which is at present 
accepted. Yet for II Sam. 11:2—I Kings 2:11 and I Kings 22— 
II Kings, this later text is our only source? It hardly needs the 
proof that this part is from Theodotion to show that for these por- 
tions we lack the aid of the real Septuagint and that conclusions 
based on this text are of dubious value.* 

The same phenomenon is found at the end of our extract where 
again the compiler of the B text has not recognized that I Kings 
16:28a-—h is a duplicate of 22:41-—50° which occurs in the first chapter 
of the second section borrowed from Theodotion. The differences 
between the two are so marked that a translation of the less known 
one will not be out of place: 


And in the eleventh® year of Omri reigned Jehoshaphat the son of Asa. 
He was thirty-five years of age when he began to reign’ and twenty-five 
years reigned he in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Azubah, 
the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in the way of Asa his father and he 
turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh. 


1So Marg. Cod. Goth. Leg., Vercellone, Var. Lect., II, 455. 

2 Does this not prove a ‘‘selbstaéndigen Recension’’ and answer the question of Kittel 
(Kénige, 23) as to ‘‘ wie kame der Verf. dazu, die Simeigeschichte hinter allen den spiteren 
Thaten Salomos zu berichten ?’’ 

3 Thackeray, Jour. Theol. Stud., VIII, 263. 

4‘*The hypothesis of Kittel and Benzinger that these verses formed originally a 
part of the narrative of M. 2, 31 ff. is very improbable. It would be inconceivable why 
they should have been repeated in 2, 8. 9; moreover, they agree entirely with the general 
character of 2, 1-9, and their repetition corresponds to the course followed elsewhere 
by the compiler of the two insertions’’ (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 66). 

5 GLom. 6 Tenth, Eth. 


7 Thus clearly the misunderstood Hebrew original. 





THE EarRuiest Book or KINGS ws 


Howbeit, they took not away the high places, they sacrificed on the high 
places and burned incense. And the acts of Jehoshaphat and all the might 
that he showed and how he warred, behold, are they not written in the book 
of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And the remnant of the sodomites 
that remained in the days of his father Asa he put away out of the land. 
And there was no king in Edom, a deputy was the king. He made a ship 
for Tarshish, to go to Ophir, to go for gold, but it went not for the ship was 
broken at Ezion Geber. Then said the king of Israel to Jehoshaphat, ‘‘ Let 
me send out thy servants and my servants in the ship.”” But Jehoshaphat 
would not. And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers in the city of David 
and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. 


Unlike the first duplicate, this is found neither in Codex A nor 
in the Syro-Hexaplar, though it appears in the second Ethiopic 
recension. Comparing the rival texts, we find that ours has but one 
ship—which reminds us that the Greek gives Solomon but one 
Tarshish ship—and it is sent by the deputy. The peace with the 
unmentioned king of Israel has no place in it, there is a different 
chronological system, and numerous minor changes. Much more 
striking is the absence of almost half, vss. 46-49, of the Hebrew nar- 
rative, from Theodotion. Codex A has it, seemingly from Aquila, 
to whom alone the Syro-Hexaplar attributes it. Theodotion also 
omits “‘king of Israel,’ in vs. 41; “‘and how he warred,” in vs. 45; 
the second ‘“‘with his fathers,’ in vs. 50; and reads ‘“‘Chronicles of 
Jehoshaphat” for “‘kings of Judah.’’ Lucian omits the entire 
section. The Hebrew is thus shown to be hopelessly late, while 
our “‘duplicate’’ is made equally early. 

Investigation of the linguistic evidence gives the same result, 
as will be clear from the following list of variants in the Greek: 
BaotNever= eBaoidevoev; EV TW EVLAUTW TO EVdEKATW ETEL TOU ZauPpEL= 
eve TETAPTW TW AxaaB; ev TH BacireLa avTOU=EV Tw BacidrEvELY aUTOV; 
ELKOOL TEVTE=ELKOOL KQL TEVTE; OVOLA THS MNTPOS=OVOUA TNH MNTPL; 
TOU TOLELV=TOU TOLnTaL; EvwWrLOV KUpLoU= EV odfadpots KUpLoV; efvov= 
efvovavev; Kat a ovvebero lwaoadal kat aca dvvacTeia nv EroLnoEev= Kat 
Ta Nowra Tw Noywv Iwoadaf Kar at duvacrerar avTov oca eEToLNCEV; 
Vey paupeva = evyeypaupeva. 

Here we have the same situation as in the other duplicate, our 
story is written in good, idiomatic Greek, the one which represents, 
though but in part, our present Massoretic text is literal to a degree. 


178 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


Content, manuscript testimony, and the character of the Greek 
all point to our text as the earlier. 

The large number of characteristic phrases in our passage makes 
it a good test for the relations of other portions of the Greek Kings. 
The literal ovoua tn wnrpe never occurs in the section 2:11—21:43. 
~The other form is not quite conclusive as it is found four times 
in II Kings, but its occurrence in 12:24b; 14:21; 15:2, 10 points 
to a nearness with 16:28a where it is found. Ev rw evavrw is 
found three times in II Kings, but in the first book, with far less 
opportunity for its use, in 4:7; 6:38; 10:14; 14:25; 15:9. 
Bao.dever is found in II Kings only in the duplicate later to be 
discussed, in I Kings in 15:8f., 24f., 33; 16:6, 23. It 1s also 
found in I Esdr. 1:44, 46, a sure sign of early date. BaotdevorTos, 
used only in 14:25; 15:1, is also common in’I Esdr. Ev of@aduors 
is never used in the section though evwroy is usedin both. Oamrerat 
is used in 14:31; 15:8, 24; 16:6, and never elsewhere. Ets aravrnyv 
with genitive is used only in Theodotionie sections, with dative in 
2:19, 35n; 12:24k; 20:27, and once in II Kings. Ovovatw is never 
used in our section, uw only once outside it, though it is found in 
3:3, 4; 8:5, 62f.; 11:8; 12:32; 18:2; 19:21. This collection of 
characteristic phrases, which might much have been enlarged had 
we not confined ourselves to those attested by the “duplicate,” 
proves clearly enough that 2:11—21:42, as a whole, is homogeneous. 

Two other passages demand consideration at this point. One 
is II Kings 1:18, 18a-d. Its parallelism with 1:17) may be dis- 
missed at once. Neither the A nor the B text support it in that 
place where it badly breaks the context. In the Syro-Hexaplar, 
vs. 18 is omitted as well. The fact that the A group gives vss. 


1 Benzinger, Kénige, 104, 126, argues that our passage is correct because its data 
are correct. Rahlfs, op. cit., 266, also accepts it. Stade-Schwally, Kings, 148, believe 
it original and in its original place, yet decline to restore its original form or give it its 
original location ‘‘as this would obliterate one of the redactional adjustments which 
have given the received Hebrew text its present form!’’ ‘‘Some minor departures from 
the usual manner of GY (e.g., ev of@adrumors instead of evwmov .... Vv. 43) show, 
however, that GY exhibits here, not the original Septuagint, but a later addition derived 
from M”’ (ibid., 176). The doublet ‘‘suggests that the older Hebrew MSS. varied as 
to the place assigned to this passage, and that the transcribers ‘harmonized’ their authori- 
ties by giving the passage in both places’’—Barnes, Kings, xxiv. ‘‘Man wird annehmen 
miissen, dass wir es hier mit einem irgendwie verstiimmelten Doppelganger von 16.28 
- LXX zu thun haben. Das Stiick mag von Einen, dem es auf Grund des MT in LXXB 
fehlte, aus LX XA eingesetzt sein; aber da er fand, dass es an anderer Stelle in B schon 
vorhanden war, so beschrinkte er sich auf das ihm Wichtigste’’ (Kittel, Kénige, 179). 


Tor Earuiest Book or KINGs - 179 


17b, 18 after vss. 18a—d simply shows that vss. 18, 18a-—d are inser- 
tions in the original Theodotionic text, in fact, the Syro-Hexaplar 
expressly attributes vss. 17b, 18 to Theodotion. Vs. 170 also flatly 
contradicts vss. 18a—d, not to speak of 3:1-8, by giving the acces- 
sion of Jehoram of Israel in the second year of Jehoram, son of Jehosh- 
aphat of Judah, instead of in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat 
himself. 

The manuscript data in regard to the parallel 3:1-3 are equally 
complicated. The N and R groups agree with our present Hebrew 
The Lucianic text gives the second year of Jehoram as in 1:17). . A 
omits about half the passage, but this seems to be due to homoeote- 
leuton, the more surprising as 1:18a-—d is in it as well as in B. 

The Greek of our two passages clearly is connected, yet there 
are significant variations: PBaovever=eGBaoidevoev; ert Iopan\=er L.; 
dexaduw = dwoeka; everer... . Baoiiews=everer.... BacidreEr; Evw- 
Tiuov=ev opbadpuots; ovde=ovxX; aATETTELAEV= METEDTNOEV; ApapTLats = 
aQuapTia; ar avTwy=arauTns. Of these, two, Baorrever and evwruor, 
connect this passage without doubt to 16:28a-h, that is to say, with 
the source used in I Kings 2:11—21:43. As for differences in con- 
tent, it is his brother instead of his father whom he did not follow, 
and Nebat as the father of Jeroboam is missing, another indication 
that the Nebat of the later story was an invention intended to give 
a respectable parentage to a man whose mother was in reality a 
harlot. At the end of the account we are told that “the anger of 
Yahweh was kindled against the children of Israel.’’! 

Quite different is the position of the Jeroboam story. We have 
already learned that it is earlier and more trustworthy than its 
parallel in the B text, which in turn is far from being the developed 
form found in the Hebrew as it stands today. Yet it is equally 
clear that, as we find it, it is an interpolation within the Greek 
section 2:11—21:43,-for differences in content’ are no less striking 
than those in Greek vocabulary. Yet this difference is not the most 


1 Vs. 17b ‘‘is an erroneous insertion and forms part of a distinct synchronistic system 
which appears in Luc., but of which this notice and that of I 16.23 are the only traces 
in MT” (Burney, Text, 264). Itis to be ‘‘cancelled because its subject matter reappears 
after v.18,’’ and L is to be accepted as giving the correct text, yet 18a—d are in their 
correct place (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 181). Kittel, Kénige, 184, 191, takes 3:1 ff. as 
the original location, makes vs. 176 a first Ergdnzung, and vss. 18a—d a later and more 
complete one. Benzinger, Kénige, 128, accepts vss. 18a—d as authentic, as does Rahlfs, 
OD. .cu., LEI, 267. 


180 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


remarkable fact. Rather is it that the likenesses in the Greek are 
so close that the parallel must be considered a revision of the original 
Jeroboam story. Nor is this likeness confined to passages where 
both have actually the same translation of the same Hebrew text; 
there is a striking similarity in general phraseology. This comes 
out noticeably in the translations of DIW, “tribe.” The Jeroboam 
story uses oxynmTpa twice, the parallel uses it six times, and it is 
found twice more in near-by passages. Theodotion never uses it in 
the Samuel or Kings extracts. UW2W is represented by gvAn twice 
in the Jeroboam narrative, twice in the parallel, once elsewhere, 
and seven times in Theodotion. Kovdifw is found in Kings only 
in chap. 12 of the first book, three times in the parallel, once in the 
Jeroboam story. vvybpoey occurs twice in the story, once in 
the parallel, twice more in our section. Pyua is found eight times 
in the one, five times in the other, though it is also found in Theodo- 
tion. Karaderuua is noted once in each and zoA\eunoere mpos twice 
in the one and once in the other. Study of these facts makes it 
clear that the Jeroboam story and the parallel have much in common 
as against Theodotion. 

Yet we should not fail to notice the number of the expressions 
in the Jeroboam story which are unique for Kings: ovrws efamo- 
OTELAOV ME; OKUTAANS; ECNnTEL; drecKEedaceEvV=AIY; GuvTpodot, SO com- 
mon in inscriptions of the Hellenistic age, yet elsewhere in the Greek 
Old Testament only in the Maccabees: euaorvyou; avecxov. All 
this goes to show that the Jeroboam story is a fragment which has 
no immediate connection with any of the other documents in Kings.! 

Finally, we must consider the epitomes in I Kings 2:35a—-k 
and 46a-l. Their true nature has been well described by Swete: 
they “‘are summaries of Solomon’s personal history, which have 
been attached, probably by the accidents of transcription, to the 
verses which they severally follow. On examination each of these 
passages proves to be made up partly of translations from verses 
which are not represented in the true LXX., partly of fragments of - 
the LXX. which occur elsewhere in their true order, partly of brief 
descriptions gathered from other parts of the book.’ So true is this 


1 Correct accordingly AJSL, XXX, 29. 
2 Swete, Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, 247. 


THe Earutest Book or KINGS 181 


description and so obviously does it fit the facts that further dis- 
cussion would seem unnecessary. Yet, curiously enough, professed 
students of the Book of Kings, whether friend or foe to the “ doublets,” 
have confused the issue by including the epitomes with the doublets 
and deciding the character of one by the other.! 

To begin with the manuscript evidence, the first epitome, 2:35a-— 
k, is in Codex A and in the Syro-Hexaplar under the obelus, the 
other is missing in both,? and this points to the former being the 
older. The first is interested almost exclusively in the public build- 
ings, the second in the general glory of Solomon. There is some 
duplication in fact, none in language. Kau edwxev Kupios dpovnouw 
TW Lartwuwy Kar codiay woAAnv odhodpa begins the first, Kar nv o 
Bao.idevs Lartwywv gdpoviuos ahodpa Kat aodos the second. II\aros 
Kapotas Ws 7 aumos n Tapa THV Padaocayr represents clearly a different 
translation from kat Iovéda car IopandX TroAXo chodpa ws yn aupos n ETL 
Tns Oadacons evs tAnOos. ‘The second says Kat outro ov apxyovTes Tou 
Darwuwy, and then actually gives a list of the leading men. The 
first, after beginning Kat ovTou ot apKXoVTEs OL KATETTAMEVOL ETL TA EPYa 
Tov Dadwuwy, gives us instead the number of workmen. 

It is clear, then, that we must study these epitomes separately. 
The first runs as follows: 


And Yahweh gave Solomon wisdom and understanding, exceeding much, 
and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And 
Solomon’s wisdom excelled that of all the sons of aforetime and all the wise 
men of Egypt. And he took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the 
city of David until he had made an end of building? the house of Yahweh 
first and the wall of Jerusalem round about: in seven years he made it and 
finished it. And Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare 
burdens and four score thousand that were hewers in the mountain. And 
Solomon made the sea and the bases(?) and the great lavers and the pillars 
and the fountain of the court and the brazen sea. And he built Millo as a 
protection for it; he breached the city of David. So the daughter of Pharaoh 
went up from the city of David into her own house which he had built for 
her. Then he built Millo. And three times in a year did Solomon offer 
burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built unto 


1 Thus Benzinger, Kénige, 14, with his appreciation of the value of his-S? account, 
nevertheless is wrong when he uses for this reason the epitomes to decide the place of 3:1. 


2 Cf. also Rahlfs, op. cit., III, 32, n. 4. 
3 [his own house and] add A. 


182 Tue AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


Yahweh, and he burnt incense before Yahweh. So he finished the house. 
And these were the chief officers that were over Solomon’s work, three 
thousand and six hundred who bare rule over the people that wrought in 
the work. And he built Ashur and Megiddo and Gezer and the Upper Beth 
Horon and Baalath. Only after he had built the house of Yahweh and the 
wall of Jerusalem round about, after this he built these cities. 


Such is an attempt to reconstruct the original form of this 
epitome. That it is a hodgepodge is at once evident; that it cannot 
be taken seriously as a source should be equally clear. That it is 
not a translation of a Hebrew original! is obvious from a closer study 
of the Greek. Vss. a and 6 are from 4:29 f., with whose Greek there 
are certain identities, though also with several important differences.? 
That it had dpovnots while the “Three” had coda shows that it has 
none of the regular Greek translations as its basis. Vs. c represents 
3:1, which in the Greek follows shortly after 4:29. Vs. d is word 
for word the same as 5:15, but vs. eis made up from chap. 7. Though 
many characteristic technical words are used, we can trace none of 
them back with absolute certainty to any translator. Vss. f-h are 
taken at first sight from 9:24, 25, 28, but vss. 24 ff. are given only 
by Aquila and Symmachus. Yet most certainly the verses are 
not taken from either of these as they appear in the Syro-Hexaplar 
or in Codex A, and they have a different order. That the building 
of Millo is repeated in two succeeding verses seems to indicate that 
the epitome had different sources. Vss. 7-k agree roughly with 
9:15 ff., but the order is different and the proper names of the 
epitome are closer to the Hebrew as a rule. 

The second epitome runs as follows: 


And king Solomon was wise exceedingly and had knowledge. And 
Judah and Israel were exceedingly many as the sand which is by the sea in 
multitude, eating and drinking and making merry. And Solomon was 
ruler over all the kingdoms and they brought gifts and served Solomon all 
the days of his life.* And Solomon began to open up the dynasteumata+ 
of the Lebanon. And he built Tamar in the wilderness. And this was 
Solomon’s provision: thirty measures of fine flour and three score measures 


1 As Stade-Schwally, Kings, 64. 


2'To save space, only a brief résumé is given of the original detailed investigation 
of the epitome Greek. 


3 Placed by Marg. Cod. Goth. Leg. after 4:32, Vercellone, Var. Lect., II, 465. 
4 Quae occulta erant, ibid, 


? 


Tue Earuiest Book or KINnGs 183 


of! ground meal, ten choice oxen and twenty? oxen out of the pastures and 
a hundred sheep, beside harts and gazelles and choice fatted fowl. Was he 
not ruler over all the region beyond the river from Raphia to Gaza, over all 
the kings beyond the river? And he had peace from all his regions round 
about and Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his own vine and 
under his own fig tree, eating and drinking, from Dan to Beersheba, all the 
days of Solomon. And these are the chief men of Solomon: Azariah the 
son of Zadok the priest, and Orniah the son of Nathan, the ruler of the 
leaders, and he ran to his house, and Zobah the scribe and Baasha the son 
of Achithalam, the recorder, and Abi the son of Joab the chief general and 
Achirah the son of Edrai who was over the tribute and Benaiah the son of 
Jehoiada over the royal court and over the brick making and Cachur the 
son of Nathan the counsellor. And* Solomon had two score thousand brood 
mares for chariots and twelve thousand horses. And he was ruler over all 
the kings from the river to the land of the Philistines and to the borders of 
Egypt. 

Even more puzzling are the relationships of this second epitome. 
The first verse has no exact parallel in our source, but it agrees 
literally, with one exception, with 4:20 as given by Aquila and 
Symmachus. To our surprise, the next verse agrees neither with 
Aquila nor with our source rendering, and its first half is repeated 
in vs. k. The third verse is parallel with 9:19 and the fourth with 
9:18b. Thus far, it is clear, the data have come ultimately from the 
same sources as have the additions in Aquila and Symmachus. 
The differences in the Greek, however, are so striking, for example, 
the use of the unique dvvacrevya, that it would seem natural to 
assume that we here have a separate translation of material not 
given in the earlier Greek source. Yet this seems quite impossible 
in the light of vss. e-g which so closely parallel 4:22-25 that, aside 
from slight omissions due to apparent condensation or trivial addi- © 
tion, there are only three real variants in Greek vocabulary. Vs. g 
has the place of 4:24b in our source, but appended to it is all the 
plus of Aquila and in exactly the same language, with one unimpor- 
tant exception. It agrees also with 10:26 in the source, save that 
the most unusual word in the verse, toxades, is here given as Oy\evat, 
and the numbers are also different, four thousand instead of forty 


1 Add choice, ibid. 

2 Thirty, ibid. 

3 Choice laying hens and choice fatted birds, ibid. The first extract ends here. 
4 Here begins the second section in Cod. Leg. 


184 THe AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


thousand, which is alone enough to prove 10:26 the earlier. The 
list of officials roughly corresponds to 4:2-6, but it is different in 
order and in language, the regular Greek text being more inclined 
to use technical official terminology of the Hellenistic period, always 
a sign of early date.1 Vs. k recurs to the extent of the kingdom 
and is somewhat parallel to 4:21, found only in Aquila and Sym- 
machus. 

The problem of the origin of this second epitome is the one 
seemingly insoluble problem of the book. One section gives a list 
of officials quite different from the one it is supposed to parallel, 
and from the age of David and not of Solomon. Others parallel 
our present Greek source, others still that of Aquila, while there 
still remain verses which parallel Aquila in content but not in 
language. Possibly the list of names is authentic. Otherwise, the 
epitome has its sources in known Hebrew or Greek texts and has 
accordingly no independent value. As a result of this discussion, 
one negative result has been secured which is of value for this investi- 
gation. The epitomes are independent and late sketches of Solo- 
mon’s history which have accidentally been incorporated in the B 
text. They can claim no credit for being in that text nor can they 
gain in value by the presence of the doublets side by side with them. 
The converse is also true, that the value of the doublets cannot be 
lessened because they are found in the same text as the epitomes. 
Hach must stand on its own merits. 

We may now list the strata we have found in the Greek Kings. 
First, in point of time, is the single fragment of the earliest known 
Greek translation which has preserved us the Jeroboam story. 
Next comes the main source of I Kings. Evidently later is the 
translator of the beginning and end of I Kings and of all II Kings, 
whom we have learned to recognize as Theodotion. Finally, the 
editor who compiled the B text added the two epitomes, thus making 
the B text the monstrosity it now appears. Yet it is from this 
B text that we must begin our reconstruction. 

Before we begin this reconstruction, we must ask whether we 
may not identify the main source of I Kings with any known trans- 
lator. As all the “Three” are amply quoted for I Kings, it is obvious 


1Clearly an entirely separate account, Benzinger, Kénige, 17. Yet note that 
Josephus omits entirely the list as found in MT. 


THE EARLIEST Book or KINGS 185 


that they will not do. Our next guess would be the anonymous 
Quinta, which is freely quoted for II Kings but never occurs on the 
first book. With this agrees the relatively good Greek of our source, 
for it is well known that that is a characteristic of the Quinta. 
Typical words or phrases for comparison are unfortunately few, 
as the most of our quotations are of the Quinta with one or all of 
the “‘Three.’”’ None the less, the few which are the exclusive 
property of the Quinta certainly do fit well with this hypothesis. 
Awpa, which Quinta uses for 7272 on II Kings 17:4 instead of the 
typically Theodotionic transliteration wavaa, is found five times in 
our source.! Eyzupiopos is used for 570 in II Kings 19:26, and, 
by mistranslation, in 23:4 In all our “Septuagint’’ Samuel-— 
Kings, it occurs only in I Kings 8:37, where it represents T1270. 
The not very common azevav7. of the same passage occurs in 
I Kings 21:18, though not confined to our source. Again, its ws 
of 19:3 occurs once in I Kings 12:6, though common in the Theo- 
dotionic section. Exzos is used by Quinta in 21:16 for 7/5 boo abs) 
Samuel—Kings, it is found only in our source and that three times.’ 
Xeuuappos from the same passage occurs nine times in our source, 
though not exclusively here. On 23:8 we are given a long passage 
from Quinta. Karacraw = 03 does not occur at all in I Kings, 
though it is found four times in II Kings and five in Chronicles. 
TWyv\a =NV22 is common in I Kings as elsewhere and the same is 
true of apxwy. Ovons is rare, but we have seen the parallel use of 
the participle in our source. ‘Thus none of the facts observed speaks 
against the Quinta authorship of our source and some speak strongly 
in its favor, in fact, considering the scantiness of the data available 
for comparison, a surprisingly good case has been made out for the 
Quinta. We shall therefore assume the Quinta authorship of our 
source, frankly recognizing that incomplete knowledge makes it 
simply a working hypothesis. 

What, now, is the value of this source? In the one case where 
we have been able to test it by an earlier translation, in the Jeroboam 
story, its defects have been only too apparent. Save in this one 


1Tt is also found ten times in Genesis, four in Judges, eight in Chronicles. Is this 
a hint that Chronicles is from the Quinta ? 


2 Four times in Judges, five in Chronicles. 


186 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


case, our Quinta, inferior as we may suspect it to be, is the best that 
has come down to us. Its deficiencies may later require the use 
of conjecture to get back to the pre-Septuagintal text. Its virtues, 
when compared with the later forms of the text, should be equally 
clear. 

That the three so-called “interpolations’” which parallel the 
Theodotion text are earlier and better should have already been 
diseovered from the preceding discussion. There is another series 
of differences from the later editions, consisting largely in a different 
order, where we may prove our Quinta, with all its faults, to be the 
superior of the later texts. 

This is already clear in chap. 4. After the twelve officials are 
named, the Quinta naturally continues, “‘ And these officials provided 
victuals,’ and as naturally we are then given the details of what 
formed the daily provisions.! The received text, on the contrary, 
after its list of officials, drags in the number and happiness of Solo- 
mon’s subjects, the extent of his kingdom, then we learn of the 
supplies used by Solomon, and only at the end is this connected 
with the officials mentioned at the first.2 

At this point, we may digress a moment to note that there is one 
serious disarrangement which is earlier than the Quinta. After 
the passage just discussed, we learn of the wisdom of Solomon and 
the account closes with ‘‘ There came of all peoples to hear the wisdom 
of Solomon from all the kings of the earth, who had heard of his 
wisdom.” Naturally, we expect to hear of the Queen of Sheba and 
of her visit, but that is, according to the received text, still six 
chapters away, in chap. 10, where it has been broken into two parts 
with a highly irrelevant group of two verses between. These 
verses become highly relevant, as we shall see, when the Sheba story 
is removed, and we must therefore take the queen away from chap. 10 
and place her in her logical location, after chap. 4. 


1Vss. 7-19, 27-28, 22-23, in the Hebrew order. 


2 Yet Stade-Schwally, Kings, 79, explain the different arrangement of the Greek as 
looking ‘‘as if an attempt had been made to put the text in order,’ and Lumby, Kings, 
46, thinks that the change of order was made ‘‘that the wedding presents might be men- 
tioned at an earlier part of the narrative.’ Kittel, Kdnige, 36, rather inclines to the 
LXX order, yet thinks it may be only the result of ‘‘einen annehmbaren Versuch, den 
Text lesbar zu machen.’’ Cf.also Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 213; Swete, Introd., 
238, follows the Greek. 


THE EAaRuiest Book or KINGS 187 


This story, with its introduction, the present 4:34, naturally 
leads up to his relations with foreign nations, and, first of all, to 
another woman, the daughter of Pharaoh. It is generally admitted 
that the present arrangement, which separates the marriage and the 
marriage gift by more than six chapters! is not correct, though it is 
not universally admitted that here is the place for the account.’ 
In continuation of this narrative dealing with foreign relations, we 
have logically the story of Hiram to connect the foreign relations 
with the temple building. 

After the introduction telling of the preliminary operations, we 
have the date of beginning actual work with the quarrying of the 
stone. This makes a perfectly satisfactory story to any reader who 
will take the narrative as it is found in the Greek, without looking 
at it through the distorting medium of the Massoretic text, as the 
following condensed translation will show: 


Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare burdens. ... . 
And six hundred overseers that wrought the work. And they were three 
years preparing the stones and the wood. And it came to pass in the four 
hundred and fortieth? year after the children of Israel were come out of 
Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the second 
month, that they hewed out great and costly stones, for the foundation 
of the house and stones specially chosen. And the servants of Solomon 
and the servants of Hiram chose them out and brought them forth. In 
the fourth year was the foundation of the house of Yahweh laid, in the second 
month.4 In the eleventh year, in the eighth month, was the house finished. 


is hal Wee ik bien Uae 

2So placed by Kent, Student's O.T., II, 178; Kittel, Kénige, 40. Burney, Tezt, 47, 
emphatically states that our source ‘‘bears the stamp of originality rather than the 
somewhat confused account of MT.”’ Stade-Schwally, Kings, 65, would throw them 
out of their present place in the Greek because they are superfluous after 2:12. 


3‘*The number given by M commends itself, as 480 =12 x40”’ (Stade-Schwally, 
Kings, 84). As elsewhere in the Greek, we have a different chronological system, in 
which the 480 years were reckoned to the end of Solomon’s reign. 


4The varying manner in which the additional month data are given shows at once 
that they are the result of imperfect correction of the Greek. Ziv, the first addition 
of the Massoretic text, is neither in the Greek nor in Chronicles. Thus two independent 
sources prove it a late interpolation. The second addition, another Ziv, is the reading 
of the Greek as a whole, though Codex B, Lucian, the Ethiopic, and a few MSS have 
‘*Nisan and’’ while Josephus and M margin have ‘‘Iyyar.’’ Thesharp variation between 
these witnesses shows how late was the interpolation; cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, 
III, 213. The third addition is in B, but the strange form, ev pyre Baad ovtos o nv o oydoos 
as against ev wyve tw Sevtepw and ev myve [Nevow Kar] tw devtepw wynve Shows that this too must 
be rejected as a later interpolation. 


188 Tuer AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


No one would suspect from this rendering that the illogical 
Massoretic text had scattered, with many additions of irrelevant 
matter, this throughout 5:151.; 180; 6:1;- 5:17-18a;) Gale 
Clearly, the author of this account would tell us that the first three 
years of Solomon’s reign were taken up with preparing the stones 
and the wood. At the conclusion of this preliminary work, in the 
beginning of the fourth year, the foundation stones were prepared 
and at once laid, although the entire house was not complete before 
the eleventh year... Then comes the detailed description of the 
house and the furnishing, after which we are given, as a sort of 
appendix, the additions to the house.” 

Our present Massoretic text inserts an account of the building 
of Solomon’s palace in the midst of the temple narrative. The 
Greek has the logical order, the palace being given after the temple 
is completed. Further, Josephus follows the Greek order, though 
he is usually a close supporter of the later text, and the late date 
of the Massoretic form is proved by the confused internal order 
of the passage as found in the later Ethiopic editions, k and E. 
That the Greek order is correct would seem self-evident, yet most 
scholars have argued in favor of the traditional order. Burney 
believes that this seemingly illogical order may be explained by the 
scribe intending to give first all the buildings and then their furniture, 
though one would hesitate to place the ‘“‘capitals”’ in that category.’ 
Stade and Schwally even doubt whether ‘‘these transpositions were 
effected by the Greek translators or by an editor who wished to have 


1So Wellhausen, Comp., 267; Burney, Tezt, 58f., for 1 ff. Stade-Schwally, Kings, 
84, have some very characteristic expressions: ‘‘It is just as possible that the writer 
condensed this statement in v. 37, and that it was afterwards re-expanded, as that this 
abridgment was due to the translator.’’ The omission of the ‘‘indispensable clause’’ 
‘fand they built the house to Yahweh”’ in 6:1 in the Greek ‘‘is one of the many indica- 
tions showing the secondary character in the arrangement of the text in G. Contrary 
to G.v.4... . the fourth year is thus made to refer to the year in which preparations 
for building began.’’ One would assume from this that G, vs. 4, gave a date which 
differed from that in vs. 1. As an actual fact, the Greek simply gives two events in one 
year and that two events may happen in one year no one will deny. Again, they refuse 
to admit that the author could have stated that it took ‘‘seven years to build the temple 
and that it was completed in all details’’ before ‘‘ these details have been given”’ (ibid., 90). 
Yet modern writers do this constantly. Kent, too (Student’s O.T., 180), thinks that the 
‘““somewhat more logical order’’ of the Greek is ‘‘due to the translators.”’ 


2**This arrangement is inferior’ (Stade-Schwally, Kings, 83). 
3 Text, 78; cf. Kittel, Kénige, 56. 


4 


wt 


fy 


THe Earuiest Book or KInGs 189 


all the statements concerning the Temple together in one section.’”! 
This strange refusal of the logical order seems largely due to the 
feeling that a late dislocation is proved “‘by the fact that v. 12b 
has been accidentally left behind in making this alteration, and now 
follows immediately after the close of ch. 6, instead of after v. 12a 
to which it clearly belongs.’ 

This is the best example of a more logical order in the Quinta. 
Accordingly, if there is textual evidence against it, our general case 
is weakened all along the line. But is there actual textual support, 
as is claimed’? ‘To be sure, there really is an addition in the Greek 
at the end of chap. 6. Taking it with the preceding verse, we have 
“And he built the inner court with three courses of hewn stone and 
a course of cedar beams (addition) round about and he constructed 
the veil of the court of the porch of the house before the temple.”’ 
The mention of the court in both verses speaks for a common unity, 
and the temple of the added verse fits with the frequent references 
to it in the preceding verses of chap. 6. Had this been found in 
the text of the Massoretes, no one would have dreamed that this 
was not the natural order. Burney himself admits that our verse 
only ‘‘seems to represent MT. ch. 7.126.’ But, to secure this 
fit, he must assume that, in the ten Hebrew words back of the addi- 
tion in the Greek, one is a corruption of a dittography, another is 
a gloss repeated from vs. 36a, still another is correctly given in the 
Greek but is unfortunately not found in the Hebrew of vs. 12), 
and the last four words must be cast out as a gloss from vs. 3. Thus, 
out of ten words behind the Greek in the addition, but three can be 
utilized to prove connection with vs. 12b. A still greater strain on 
our credulity is made when we are requested to believe that four 
words in our present Hebrew vs. 12b, which are lacking in the Greek, 
were originally there but were dropped through homoeoteleuton, 
leaving but the three for comparison. As an actual fact, we have 
only the identity of three Hebrew words, ‘“‘to the court of the porch 
of the house,” in the two verses, and this can hardly prove, in the 
face of so much disagreement, the identity of the two verses. Much 
less can the identity of these three words prove that the logically 


4 Kings, 90. 
2 Burney, Tezt, 78. 


190 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


better order of the Greek should be abandoned. A better illustra- 
tion of the danger in attempting to force the Greek to fit the Hebrew 
could not be found.! . 

The next important difference in order is in chap. 8, where vss. 
12 f. of the Massoretic text are found in the Greek after vs. 53. It 
would be superfluous to add here to the growing literature on this 
Ode,? but it is coming to be more and more recognized that the 
Greek has preserved for us a precious fragment of Hebrew poetry 
which the later Massoretes slurred over because of its pagan char- 
acter, though indeed the whole chapter is a close parallel to the 
Babylonian incantation texts.’ 

In chap. 9, the. Quinta makes vs. 26 follow immediateae after 
vs. 14. Omitting this and also the Queen of Sheba story, our narra- 
tive runs as follows: 

And Hiram sent to Solomon six score talents of gold and King Solomon 
made a ship in Ezion Geber . . . . and Hiram sent in the ship his servants, 
shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And 
they came to Ophir and fetched from thence gold, a hundred and twenty 
talents, and brought it to King Solomon. And the ship of Hiram brought 
in the gold from Ophir. It brought great plenty of almug trees and precious 
stones. And the king made of the almug trees bases‘(?), etc. Now the 
weight of gold was, etc. 


Then follows a summary of the building activities made possible 
by this gold and the consequent enslavement of nations for the 
work. Next comes Solomon’s wisdom and the tribute from all the 
earth, Solomon’s collection of horses and chariots, the extent of his 
territorial rule, his making silver to be as the stones in Jerusalem, 
and his horse trade with Egypt. All this arrangement is perfectly 
possible and in large part highly logical. Most extraordinary, the 
Chronicler proves the Greek order to be correct so far as concerns 
the grouping 10:26; 4:21; 10:27, while he also confirms the omission 
of 10:26a and 4:21ec. 


1 Kent, Student's O.T., 193, places 7:1 ff. after chap. 8, but this has nothing to recom- 
mend it. 

2Of. Schmidt, Messages of the Poets. 

3 It is characteristic of Stade-Schwally that ‘‘above all it is conclusive’’ against the 
authenticity of the Ode ‘‘that G elsewhere in Kings often follows a Hebrew text which 
must be explained as a modification of our present MT.”’ 

4The §¥0% of MT is difficult, cf. Stade-Schwally, ad loc. Chron. has rmibon. 
Should we read 35% which is represented by vrogrnprypara in II Kings 16:17 ? 


Tue Earuiest Book or KInGs 191 


The Greek has arranged in a logical order what the Massoretic 
text has made 9:14, 26-28; 10:11, 12, 14-22; 9:15, 17-22; 10:23- 
26; 4:21; 10:27-29. It is only when we read the Massoretic text 
immediately after the Quinta that we realize how illogical the later 
text is. According to the present Hebrew, Hiram sends his money,- 
then come buildings, then the story of Pharaoh, then more buildings, 
then the Amorites and the rest of the list, who are to be servants 
while the Israelites are to have the place of honor, then come the 
chief officials,-only after which do we hear of the bringing-up of 
Pharaoh’s daughter then there is more building, that of Millo, then 
his sacrifices, his completion of his house, then we are back again 
to Hiram and his Ophir trading, and then the Queen of Sheba comes 
to Solomon. After she has given her gifts to Solomon, we pause to 
note that the Ophir navy mentioned some time before brought 
almug trees and from them were made various objects, before we 
are permitted to learn that, in return for the Queen of Sheba’s gifts, 
Solomon gave her all that she desired. Once more we are back to 
the income of Solomon, his bucklers and his throne, then the navy 
of Tarshish brings gold, ete., then is his excelling all the earth in 
riches and wisdom, his tribute, his horses, the abundance of silver 
and cedars in Jerusalem, and finally his horses once more. Can 
anything be. more confused? Certainly the author of Kings must 
have been very illogical if he must be blamed for such a riot of 
confusion. But why should we make such an assumption when 
the Greek gives so much more sensible an order? In truth, the 
best argument for the accuracy of the Greek is the unparalleled 
disorder of the present text.! 9 

The first half of chap. 11 has a strikingly different order in the 
Quinta. This order is so obviously superior that it has had many 
supporters. It is significant for the later date of the present Hebrew 
arrangement that the Ethiopic textus receptus, k, still in large 
part follows the B text. Our form runs as follows: 

, 1‘*The arrangement in G of M 9 15-25 is inferior both in C. 10 and C. 2” (Stade- 
Schwally, Kings, 111). It is ‘‘scarcely superior’’ (Burney, Text, 133). Barnes, Kings, 
86, rather inclines to the Greek order. Swete, Introd., 239, makes the Greek the earlier. 
Kittel, Kénige, 85, has the order 10-14, 24, 15, 17b-22, 23, 26-28, 25; 10:1-13, and 
Kent, Student’s O.T., 193 ff., accepting to a certain extent the Greek order, gives 9:10— 


15, 176-23, 26-28; 10:11-12, 14-29. But such half-way measures, as the retention of 
9:15-25, which is missing in the Greek, are impossible. 


192 Tut AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


Now King Solomon loved women and he had seven hundred wives, 
princesses, and three hundred concubines. And he took foreign women, 
together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, 
Syrians, and Edomites, Hittites and Amorites, of the nations concerning 
which Yahweh said unto the children of Israel, ‘‘Ye shall not go among 
them, neither shall they come among you, for surely they will turn away 
your heart after their gods”; unto these Solomon clave in love. And it 
came to pass when Solomon was old that his heart was not perfect with 
Yahweh his god as was the heart of David his father,! for his foreign wives 
turned away his heart after their gods. Then did Solomon build a high 
place for Chemosh the god of Moab and for Milkom the god of the children 
of Ammon and for Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and so he did 
for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. 
And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, he walked 
not after Yahweh, as David his father. And Yahweh was angry with 
Solomon because his heart was turned away from Yahweh the god of Israel.” 


In another case, that of the Rezon story, the Quinta, while not 
original,? nevertheless permits us to make the necessary correction. 
We have already seen that the story, as a story, is copied from the 
Jeroboam narrative and so is valueless to the historian. In the 
present Hebrew text the Rezon story follows that concerning 
Hadad. In the Quinta it is inserted just after the opening of 
that story.4 In this latter position it is universally admitted to 
be an interpolation. On this ground alone it is clear that it should 
have no place in the original of Kings. Further proof may be found 
in the fact that a considerable portion of the interpolation in Quinta 
agrees word for word with the Aquila addition which Codex A 
gives at the point where it occurs in the Massoretic text, although 
the proper names in the interpolation are of the early type, while 


°1‘* As was the heart of David his father,’’ om. by Irenaeus, may not be significant 
as he has a much reduced text, but it looks like a later addition. 


2 That this order is correct has been well argued by Burney, Tezt, 153 ff., whose 
translation has been closely followed. Soalso Kent, O.7.,196; Barnes, Kings, 98; Swete, 
Introd., 239. Stade-Schwally, Kings, 121, admit that several passages of M are ‘‘given 
by G in a smoother form,” that ‘‘v. 5 is a later addition which has been spun out of 
v. 7,’ that ‘7b is a later addition,’’ and that ‘‘the text of G is still free from some inter- 
polations in M; nor does it exhibit the harsh constructions and repetitions,’ yet they 
can declare, in spite of all this, ‘‘in this respect G represents a subsequent correction of 
M,”’ and that G gives the text ‘‘in an older form but with secondary transpositions.”’ 


3 As Benzinger, Kénige, 81. The ‘‘notice is ancient and genuine’’ (Burney, Tezt, 
113). May have good data, though interpolation (Kittel, Kénige, 98). 


4 Kent, O.7., 197, makes a slip when he says the Rezon story is not in the Greek. 


Tue Earuiest Book or KINGS 193 


those. in the other are transliterations.!. The exact history of the 
fragment is unclear but it certainly did not belong to the original 
Quinta and so must be excluded from the original Book of Kings. 

The last of the important differences in order between the 
Quinta and the Hebrew? is found at the end of our Quinta fragment 
where chap. 21 of the Hebrew is placed after chap. 19. It is almost 
universally recognized that, in its Hebrew order, chap. 21 breaks 
the connection between chap. 20 and its sequel, chap. 22.3 Josephus, 
who so rarely uses the Septuagint,‘ still has our order and the same 
is true of the Ethiopic textus receptus. 

To sum up the results thus far secured on the question of the 
conflicting orders, we must conclude that; with the exception of 
one obvious interpolation, the Quinta has a better order in every 
case than the Massoretic text. That the Quinta does not always 
have the earliest arrangement is made clear by the Queen of Sheba 
story. 

A third aid given us by the Quinta in our attempt to secure the 
earliest edition of Kings is to be found in its omissions. Many 
are, to be sure, merely scribal and so are of no importance in our 
investigation. Many more so-called ‘‘omissions”’ are simply due 
to the fact that they are placed elsewhere and these have already 
been discussed. ‘The ones we will now consider are of importance 
as showing a deliberate re-editing at a time later than the Quinta 
translation. In other words, what are ‘omissions’’ from the stand- 
point of the Massoretic text are additions from that of the earlier 
edition of Kings. 

The first significant addition is that of “‘testimonies’”’ in 2:8, 
itself a late passage.®> In 3:2, the ‘‘name”’ of Yahweh was inserted 
when it was felt that Yahweh could not dwell in a house.§ In 4:180. 


1 Yet the B text has the unique Aayacex, while the A text in one place has carav, in 
another avtcketpevos. 


2A number of minor changes of no general significance have been passed over in 
this article. 


3 Burney, Text, 210; Kittel, Kénige, 155; Swete, Introd., 239; yet even here Stade- 
Schwally, Kings, 164, are not quite persuaded that the Greek can be correct. 

4 Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, III, 111. 

’ Only in GALR gym. Theod. 


6Cf. AJSL, XXX, 30; the expression is Driver 10, not in the Jeroboam list but 
shown to be late by this passage. 


194. Tur AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


we have an antiquarian gloss,! the towns of Jair, and the same is 
true of 4:24b, the extent of Solomon’s kingdom.2 ‘‘His fame was 
in all the nations round about,” vs. 3lc, is the same glorification 
type.’ ; 
A striking passage is 6:11-13, “‘and the word of Yahweh came 
to Solomon, saying, ‘Concerning this house which thou art building, 
if thou wilt walk in my statutes and execute my ordinances and keep 
all my commandments to walk in them; then will I establish my 
word with thee which I spake unto David thy father. And I will 
dwell among the children of Israel and will not forsake my people 
Israel.’”” It is rarely that we have such good evidence that a passage 
is late, for it is not found in B, in the Lucianic text, in the earliest 
Ethiopic, in the Chronicles, nor in Josephus.4 On the other hand, it 
is not under the asterisk in the hexaplaric material, and so must 
date between the time of Josephus and Origen.’ In this short 
passage of three verses, which are, on manuscript evidence, admit- 
tedly late, we have four expressions which Driver® has given as 
characteristic of the latest editor of Kings, D.2, ‘walk in my ways” 
(statutes); D.3, “keep my statutes and my ordinances”’’; D.22b, 
“David”; D.6, “establish my word.’ Thus, one-twelfth of the 
phrases which he considers characteristic of that editor occur in 
a passage which no one has doubted was later than the Christian 
era. Furthermore, every one of these phrases likewise occurs in 
the list of expressions characteristic of the later editor of the Jeroboam 
story.’ That such independent evidence can be found for the late 
date of a quarter of the phrases already, on quite different evidence, 
shown to belong to the post-Septuagintal editor of that story must 
be considered very strong corroboration of these results. 

In chaps. 6 f., we have a number of additions whose purpose is 
to glorify the temple by adding gold, cedar, and other valuable - 


1In A 247 Arm. Syr. Hex. ><. Sym. 
2 Syr. Hex. . Note also that 4:1-6, the list of officers, is omitted by Josephus. 
3 GAL gyr. Hex. X. ; 


4 Even Stade-Schwally, ad loc., admit that it is a ‘‘late Deuteronomistic addition’’; 
cf. Burney, Tezxt, 68 f., for the use of these expressions in other books. 


5Of. Rahlfs, Septwaginta-Studien, III, 213; also in Ethiopic k except R and in GN. 
6 Introduction, 190 ff. 
SINERSVE DO, One BLO: 


THE Earuiest Book or KINGS 195 


material for its adornment. Chap. 8 presents a phenomenon which 
seems not to have been adequately recognized. Objections have 
been raised to the statement in the earlier article! that the present 
Hebrew text of Chronicles is often earlier than that of Kings. In 
this chapter we have a striking series of cases where our present 
Kings has been deliberately revised to agree with Chronicles and 
this correction has been made after the Quinta translation was 
written. Such additions from the Chronicler are found in vss. 16, 
2b, d, 3a, 4a, c, 5a, c, 6ab, 8c, 24ab, 26ba, 38ab, 41b, 49b, 63c, 65d, 
and a few other minor cases of a word or two. In every one of these 
cases, the entire B group, often supported by the Ethiopic textus 
receptus as well, by its omission shows them not to belong to their 
original. That this means deliberate revision to Chronicles ought 
to be evident, even without the appearance of that most char- 
acteristic of all the Chronicler’s pet phrases, “‘the priests and the 
Levites” in vs. 4c. The presence of the Levites in Josephus proves 
the contamination to have taken place before his time. 

The additions to the Quinta form of the Jeroboam story have 
already been noted. To 15:4 f., which itself is late enough, ‘‘ David 
doing right in the sight of Yahweh,” a still later writer has added the 
qualification ‘‘save only in the matter-of Uriah the Hittite,” and there 
was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life,”’ 
which flatly contradicts both of the older accounts.? The cities 
built by Asa are neither in the B text nor in the Chronicles, and we 
seem to have contamination from Chronicles in 15:18, 19, 24. The 
continual war between Asa and Baasha in 15:32 is likewise missing 
in the B text. The utter destruction of the house of Baasha, 16:11), 
12a, breaks the context and is absent from the B text. Whether 
the Lucianic text is justified in omitting 16:34, the rebuilding of 
Jericho, may be doubted. 

The Elijah story is fairly free from interpolation. Two striking 
ones, with an obvious theological reason, are 18:300, “and he repaired 
the altar of Yahweh that was thrown down,’ an evident attempt 
to connect this private altar with the cult, and vs. 36a, “and it came 


Paw hi AA, O, 24, 26 1., 30. 
2 Thus far GL; 933%, 
3 Om. Stade-Schwally. 
4In A 52 92 123 242 Syr. Hex. 


196 Tuer AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


to pass at the time of the offering of the evening oblation,’’! a similar 
attempt at connection. That we have another case of addition 
of the “‘name”’ of Yahweh for his altar in vs. 32 is proved by its 
omission in Lucian and Lucifer. The dislocation of chap. 21 has 
made necessary a new introduction, ‘‘and it came to pass after these 
things; fori: i 

Thus the Quinta, in spite of its inferiority to the earliest Sep- 
tuagint, is as markedly superior to the present Massoretic text and 
gives much assistance toward the recovery of the original Book of 
Kings. The text of Theodotion, on the other hand, agrees in all 
essentials with our present Hebrew. There are cases where the 
Hebrew is longer, but they are not numerous and none is of first-rate 
importance. ‘Is it because there is no god in Israel to inquire of 
his word ?”’ in 1:16 is characteristic of later modes of thought. The 
omission of 17:14b-15 might be explained as due to homoeoteleuton. 
But when we find here too the rejection of statutes and covenants 
which Yahweh had made with the fathers, so indicative of the post- 
Septuagintal reviser, we must explain it as a later gloss. ‘Hast 
thou not heard how I have done it long ago of ancient times?” (19:25) 
illustrates how men of the later age looked back to this period, as 
does 20:19, “‘He said moreover ‘Is it not sufficient if peace and 
truth shall be in my days?’”’. Such are the most important variants 
which can be found through the Greek on II Kings. It is evident 
that no new edition has been produced since the translation of 
Theodotion. 

Fortunately, we have another way by which we may test the 
originality of the text of the Hebrew II Kings, the comparison of 
Isa., chaps. 36-39, with the parallel passages in II Kings 18:13— 
20:19.3 The Kings passage is as clearly in place as the Isaiah 
extract is an interpolation.4 Add to this the fact that in the last 
named is a psalm, 38:10-20, of decidedly late tone, and that the 


1[In A Arm. Aq. Theod. 

2The omission of vss. 10b-13a is clearly due to homoeoteleuton. 

3 The following sections are a résumé of an unpublished study on the sources for 
the reign of Hezekiah; cf. ‘‘ Western Asia in the Reign of Sennacherib,’’ Amer. Hist. 
Assn. Report, 1909, 95. 

4'The interpolation seems to have been made after the collection of prophecies had 
assumed practically its present shape as it divides the body of the so-called Deutero- 
Isaiah, chaps. 40 f., from its introduction in chap. 35. 


rt 


THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 197 


next verses, 21 f., are clearly out of order and show a confusion 
best explained, it would appear, by assuming that they were copied 
from the account in Kings, and we can understand why the general 
consensus of opinion has been that it was really copied from the 
historical work. 

Yet lateness of insertion is a very long way from lateness of source, 
and there are grave objections to our taking the Isaiah passage as 
derived from our present Book of Kings. A glance will show that 
the Isaiah extract does not contain II Kings 18:14—-16. Had this 
been in the account which lay before the inserter of the Isaiah 
interpolation, it would certainly have been copied, for the Hezekiah 
psalm shows the willingness of this compiler to increase his narrative. 
Note, too, that the beginning of the story runs smoothly in Isaiah, 
while in Kings these three verses patently break the connection. 
We cannot assume that the editor of Isaiah carefully rejected just 
these three verses because they interrupted the connection and 
were inconsistent with the remainder, for he has not seen that what 
he has incorporated has its own inconsistencies, pointing to separate 
sources, not to speak of his own glaring example of inconsistency in 
the dislocated 38:21f. We can only assume, then, that these 
verses were not in the text he copied. 

We might, of course, still argue that he copied Kings before 
these verses were inserted. But that would make them a gloss of 
decidedly late date, and this does not at all fit with the fact that 
these three verses so well agree with the Assyrian account. In all 
probability, their source is the ‘Book of the Chronicles of the Kings 
of Judah,” the only source quoted for Hezekiah’s reign, and the 
basis of the annalistic framework of Kings. With this agrees the 
dry annalistic style and the shorter and later form of the name 
Hezekiah. Thus far we may expect general agreement, but the 
necessary inference is to be drawn. If this section comes through 
the editor of the earlier Book of Kings and yet was not in the original 
of the Isaiah story, then naturally Isaiah was not copied from 
Kings, even in its earliest form; in other words, each was copied 
from a common source of a prophetic character. 

Our next problem is to discover what is the original form of this 
story, that is, which of the two accounts is the nearer to their source. 


198 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


The current theory that the Isaiah recension is an abridgment of 
that of Kings! would be possible only if one could prove actual 
abridgment consciously carried out and which would omit facts, 
not words. In truth, the differences between Isaiah and Kings are 
just such variants as are likely to develop with the transmission of 
a manuscript text. Even the Theodotionic Greek translation is 
shorter than our present Hebrew of Kings, the Hebrew of Isaiah 
is shorter than that, and shortest of all was the Isaiah which was 
before the Septuagint translator of that book. Thus we can trace 
step by step the growth of the text. 

It may not be out of place to study this in some detail. In 
18:17, Kings adds the Tartan and the Rabsaris to the Rabshakeh 
who alone occurs in Isaiah. That this is a late insertion is proved 
by the Greek Kings which in vs. 18 tells us that Elakim and the 
rest came out to him. The addition, “and they went up and came 
to Jerusalem, and when they were come up, they went in,” is not 
found at all in Isaiah and the second half was later than even the 
Theodotion Kings. ‘‘And when they had called to the King”’ is 
not supported by Isaiah. ‘‘And pierce it,” vs. 21, is found in the 
present Isaiah, but its absence in all the Greek but Theodotion 
shows it a late contamination from Kings and the same is true of 
vs. 22b, “Is not that he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah 
hath taken away and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem ‘Ye shall 
’”” which is only on the margin of Q under 
the asterisk, while “in Jerusalem”’ is not even in the Hebrew Isaiah. 
The passage 18:25b weakens the effect of the rhetorical question 
in vs. 25a and was not in the true Isaiah according to the testimony 
of the best manuscripts, A and Q.2 Other minor additions of the 
Kings editors are “the son of Hilkiah”’ in vs. 26, not in Isaiah, 
though $5 margin and IT’ have it by contamination from Kings; 
“unto Rabshakeh”’ which is not in the Greek Isaiah; ‘‘to speak 
these words”’ in vs. 27, not in QI; ‘‘and spake, saying,” not in 
ST, while the “saying”’ is not in the Hebrew; ‘‘out of his hand” 
in vs. 29 has never gone into Isaiah; ‘make your trust in Yahweh”’ 


worship before this altar, 


1 Driver, Literature, 214 f. 


2 For the character of the MSS in the Prophets, cf. Proksch, Septuaginta Studien, 
possim. 


THe EARLIEST Book or KINGS 199 


in vs. 30 is not in the Greek Isaiah; ‘‘a land of olive trees and of 
honey that ye may live and not die”’ in vs. 32 and “‘ Hena and Ivvah”’ 
in vs. 34 are not in the Hebrew Isaiah; and the “people” of vs. 36 
is missing in the Greek of Kings as in Isaiah. 

In chap. 19, “all” of vs. 4 is missing in Isaiah and in.A of Kings; 
“his master” is found in the Greek Isaiah only on the margin of 
Q; “that he had returned from Lachish”’ is only in B, not a very 
good manuscript in Isaiah; in vs. 9, the first words are omitted so 
that we read with the Greek Isaiah ‘for he had heard that Tirhaka, 
king of Ethiopia had come out to fight with him’’; the weak end- 
ing of vs. 11, “‘and thou shalt be delivered,” is absent from SAQ; 
in vs. 14, ‘‘and read it; and Hezekiah went up into the house of 
Yahweh” is missing in AQ; vs. 16 has been expanded, for SAQ 
read only ‘‘Hear Yahweh, see Yahweh, and know the words which 
Sennacherib has sent’’; ‘‘of its fruitful fields” in vs. 23 and “with 
the soles of my feet will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt” in vs. 24 
are not in the Greek Isaiah; “strange”’ in vs. 24 is not in the Hebrew 
Isaiah; from vs. 26 the Greek omits “‘inhabitants,’”’ ‘ confounded,”’ 
“as the grass of the field, and as the green herb,”’ “‘before it is grown 
up”’; ‘‘and he shall not come into this city”’ in vs. 33 is omitted from 
SAOQ; in vs. 34, “‘to save it”’ is not in B on Kings; in vs. 35, “‘it 
came to pass in that night’’ is not in Isaiah; and, in vs. 36, “and 
returned” is not supported by the Greek Isaiah. 

In 20:4, “and it came to pass that when Isaiah was gone out 
into the middle court” is not in Isaiah and is an attempt to make 
the account more vivid. The variations in the Massoretic text 
between “‘city’’ and ‘‘court”’ is still another proof of the lateness 
of this insertion. ‘‘Was gone out” is missing in the Greek of Kings. 
In vs. 5, Isaiah omits ‘‘the prince of my people.” It is well agreed 
that T’A2 is a late term which proves at least the exilic date of its 
context. ‘I will heal thee; on the third day thou shalt go up to 
the house of Yahweh,” not in Isaiah, is another attempt to add 
vivifying details. SAQT in vs. 6 omit “and this city’’ while Isaiah 
leaves out “‘for mine own sake and for my servant David’s sake.’’ 
The latter expression we have already seen was added by the 
“Deuteronomistic”’ reviser of the Jeroboam story, and its absence 
in the earliest witnesses to this passage once more proves the late 


200 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


date of another expression, Driver, 22a, which has been considered 
characteristic of the later editor of Kings.! 

Vss. 7-11 are of the utmost importance for our study since here 
we have the greatest divergence between the rival texts and here 
has been found the strongest argument for the copying of Kings 
by Isaiah. The strongest argument against the priority of the 
Kings text is found in the fact that the Hebrew Kings has added 
“and they took” in vs. 7 and ‘‘by which it had gone down on the 
dial of Ahaz’’ in vs. 11 since the time of Theodotion. That trans- 
lator read the former passage as “‘Let them take a cake of figs and 
lay it on the boil and he shall recover” which is almost what Isaiah 
reads. To be sure, Isaiah places the formal method of cure after 
the sign, but this is in reality more logical. The order in the Greek, 
if we omit the disturbing interpolation of the psalm, is perfectly 
intelligible, for the reading of the Greek, ‘‘and Hezekiah said ‘This 
is the sign that I shall go up to the house of Yahweh,’”’ is the natural 
appendix to ‘‘So the sun returned ten steps on the dial whereon it 
was gone down,” which comes just before the insertion. The 
material which is in Kings, but not in Isaiah in this section, shows the 
usual types of recensional addition. The demand of Hezekiah for 
a sign in 8 is naturally explained by the later feeling that Isaiah 
could not have so demeaned himself as to mention a sign as con- 
firmation. An earlier generation did not need to excuse Isaiah by 
making it a concession to Hezekiah’s weakness of faith. To them 
it was perfectly natural that a wonder-working prophet should give 
a sign. When conceptions of the function of a prophet changed, 
a change in the text was demanded. 

“Nor in his dominion” in vs. 18 must be omitted because not 
in the Greek Isaiah, as must “that shall issue from thee” in vs. 18. 
‘He said moreover ‘Is it not well if peace and truth shall be in my 
days ?’” in vs. 19 is not in B on Kings, though it occurs in essentially 
the same form in the Hebrew Isaiah. Yet the first half is not in 
the Greek or Syriac. 

Thus we see the gradual development of the text in our study 
of these, the most important additions in the Hebrew Kings. There 


1In the light of this evidence, we must consider this same expression in II Kings 
19:34 to be an insertion, though it is found in all our witnesses as they stand today. 


Tor EarRuiest Book or KINGS 201 


are a very few additions which have been incorporated in the Greek 
Isaiah, but no one of them is of more importance than the additions 
to Kings which we have passed over in silence because of their 
insignificance. 

This long and wearisome recital of the minutiae of the two texts 
has served its purpose if it has made one fact clear, that the Isaiah 
text is the earlier in type and that, like Chronicles, it could not 
have been copied from our present text of Kings. Unlike Chronicles, 
we can go one step farther and say, on the basis of the three verses 
from the annalistic editor which are missing in Isaiah, that it could 
not have been copied from even the earliest edition of Kings. That 
we have found one more case where a late insertion uses a phrase 
characteristic of the ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ reviser of Kings is not the 
least of our results. 

There still remains one witness to be examined, the Chronicler. 
To be sure, it has been a commonplace of criticism that the Chronicler 
copied from Kings, and this has always been taken to mean that he 
copied from Kings in its present form. Evidence has already been 
accumulated, in this as in the preceding article, to prove that this 
isnot true. The situation appears most clearly in I Kings, chap. 8 f., 
where there are literally dozens of places where the evidence of the 
Greek shows that our present Hebrew text has been conformed to 
that of the Chronicler in post-Quinta times. Even the “priests 
and the Levites”’ of that author have been imported into Kings. 
Thus the traditional relation between Kings and Chronicles is 
reversed with a vengeance. 

The course of the present study has also made clear the evidential 
value of the Chronicler in omissions. In the month omission in 
6:1, the Chronicler supports the Ethiopic. It omits, in company 
with Josephus, Codex B, Lucian, and the earliest Ethiopic, the 
well-known 6:11-13, whose four characteristic ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ 
phrases give such added proof as to the post-Septuagintal date of 
the ‘‘Deuteronomistic”’ phrases in general. It agrees with B in 
the omission of 10:26a and 4:210, and it also agrees with that manu- 
script in placing the verse 4:21 of the Massoretic text between its 
10:26 and 27. Like B, Lucian, and the Ethiopic A, it omits the 
beth in Abel beth Maacah (15:20) and the cities of Asa in vs. 23. 


202 Tue AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


Since Chronicles is absolutely free from any possible suspicion of 
connection with any of the Greek recensions, the value of its inde- 
pendent evidence in supporting that of.others is very great. Natu- 
rally, the converse is also true, that these cases of agreements with 
other and independent authorities strengthen our confidence in the 
reality of other omissions which rest on the testimony of the 
Chronicler alone. , 

Yet the evaluation of the unsupported evidence of that author 
is by no means easy. Where he omits, our first assumption must be 
that he did so intentionally. Only where there is a good probability 
that the Chronicler would have copied the passage had he possessed 
it can we use his omission and then only when it has a “ Deuterono- 
mistic’’ ring and when it breaks the context. 

Passages which can meet this test are few, but of the greatest 
importance. The five omitted in chap. 3 are all in the tone of the 
“Deuteronomistic” reviser: ‘and Solomon loved Yahweh, walking 
in the statutes of David his father; only he sacrificed and burnt 
incense in the high places,” in vs. 3; “according as he [David] 
walked before thee in truth and in righteousness and in uprightness 
of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great loving 
kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne as it 
is this day,” in vs. 6; “and the speech pleased Yahweh, that Solomon 
had asked this thing,” in vs. 10; ‘‘so that there hath been none like 
thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee,” 
in vs. 12; ‘and if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes 
and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then will 
I lengthen thy days,’ in vs. 14. 

Much stress has been laid on the occurrence of ‘unto this day” 
in various places in the Book of Kings. Some of these we have 
already seen have no early testimony in their favor. That the 
phrase as used for the almug trees in 10:12 is equally late is shown 
by its omission by the Chronicler. That author gives Abijah a 
good reputation, thus proving that he did not have before him 
15:3-5, “‘and he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had 
done before him; and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his 
god as the heart of David his father. Nevertheless for David’s 

ASSL ix esto 


We 


Pg 


THE Earuiest Book or KINGS 203 


sake did Yahweh his god give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up 
his son. after him, and to establish Jerusalem; because David did 
that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and turned not aside 
from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life.” 
Again, in vs. 11, ‘“‘as did David his father”’ is not in Chronicles, and 
when the reviser for a third time! has “war all the days” in vs. 16 
the Chronicler flatly denies it.2 Important also is the omission of 
the dwelling in Tirza in vs. 21. 

We might suspect that these were wilful omissions of the Chroni- 
cler, did they not form a homogeneous whole with characteristics 
common to the passages which the Greek has shown to be later 
additions. Thus, in these verses which were not found in the com- 
mon source of the Chronicler and of the later ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ 


reviser of Kings, we have “walking in the ways,” ‘‘keeping the 
statutes,” “for my servant David’s sake,” “‘doing right in the eyes 
of Yahweh,” ‘‘a lamp for David in Jerusalem,” “all the days,’ 


“as it is this day,’ and all these have already been shown to be 


post-Septuagintal by their absence from the oldest form of the 
Jeroboam story. In addition, we have other recognized phrases 
of the *‘ Deuteronomistic”’ reviser, ‘‘sacrificing and burning incense 
on the high places,’”’ D.37; ‘‘none like thee,” B.63; ‘walking in 
the sins of his father,” B.56; “perfect with Yahweh his god,” B.65. 
It is clear that these expressions are missing from the Chronicler 
because they were inserted in his source later than the time when he 
copied it. If this discovery assists us to secure the earliest Book 
of Kings, no less does it give the Chronicler, with all his faults, a 
higher position than he has usually been granted. 

We. have now passed in review all the manuscript data. Thus 
far we have had undoubted facts for our basis. The conclusions 
from these facts may be denied, though the one great result obtained 
from them, homogeneity in thought and in language of these added 
passages, would seem to prohibit any other theory as to their meaning. 
We have already learned, however, that our manuscript material 
varies widely in value in different places. Only for one short section 
can we use the one fragment we dare to call the “Septuagint.” The 


DOr. 14:30; 15:6: also. 15:7. 
II Chron, 14:6. 


204 Tut AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


Quinta, if it be that translation, is infinitely superior to the present 
Hebrew, but comparison with the ‘“‘Septuagint’’ shows it to have 
already been worked over. Nor should we forget that, in all prob- 
ability, the Quinta, again if it truly is that.translation, was made no 
short time after the main revision took place. Still worse, for 
somewhat more than half of Kings, we do not have even the Quinta, 
but must content ourselves with Theodotion who gives us practically 
the same text as that in our present Hebrew Old Testaments. Our 
best source is the Chronicler, when we can use him. Such use is 
difficult for we do not have, save for the last two chapters, the 
original “‘Septuagint,’”’ for the late translation, which is all we have 
for the remainder of the work, does not disagree in any essential 
fact from our present Hebrew, and yet we know that that has been 
at least sometimes conformed to Kings. Even if we had the original 
Chronicler, we could not be sure that he would have copied out all 
the passages in which are these interpolations. Rather, we should 
be thankful for the few cases where his testimony is undoubted. 

Thus, for all but the Jeroboam story, we are reduced to the pos- 
sibility of conjecture. Fortunately, such conjecture is not needed 
so frequently as would be imagined from the above recital. It 
would appear that the survival of the older Jeroboam story was due 
primarily to the fact that it represented the most extreme case of 
““Deuteronomistic”’ editing, for certainly we have no other case 
where we even suspect such an elaborate series of changes. The 
fact that the Chronicler furnishes no evidence for such elaborate 
additions in the last two thirds of his parallel narrative should also 
be taken into account. One good reason for the virtual absence! 
of such additions in the central half of the book is the character 
of this section, a series of prophetic stories where there was little 
need for further moralizing. 

In the preceding pages we have had ample opportunity to study 
the vocabulary of these ‘‘Deuteronomistic’’ additions; in fact, we 
have found the same expressions to recur with monotonous regularity. 
~When we find these identical expressions in other portions of Kings, 
we may assume that they indicate ‘‘Deuteronomistic”’ interpola- 
tions, even if we have no manuscript evidence. 

LOM GA J Sl nso 


e 


THE EARLIEST Book oFf KINGS | 205 


The interpolator has been especially busy in chap. 2. In vss. 3f., 
we have “and keep the charge of thy god (B.1), to walk in his 
ways (D.2), to keep his statutes, his commandments, and _ his 
ordinances (D.3), according to that which is written in the law 
of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest (B.4), 
and whithersoever thou turnest thyself; that Yahweh may estab- 
lish his word (D.6), which he spake, saying, ‘If thy children take 
heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart’ 
(D.9), saying, ‘there shall not fail thee a man on the throne of 
Israel (D.8).’”’ Here we have seven of the characteristic phrases 
of the ‘‘ Deuteronomist,” three of which are proved post-Septuagintal 
by the Jeroboam story, even did we not have clear evidence that 
it is an interpolation from the way in which these well-known 
theological reflections break the vigorous, though anything but 
theological, “‘Be a man and revenge me.” Equally true is the 
“who hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my 
father, and who hath made me a house (B.62), as he promised” in 
vs. 24 which so badly breaks ‘‘As Yahweh liveth” from ‘surely 
Adonijah shall be put to death this day.” Still another most 
inappropriate addition is “‘but unto David and his seed and his 
house and his throne shall there be peace forever from Yahweh,” 
which is quite incongruous in the threat of vs. 33. So clearly was 
this break recognized that an annotator who lived later than the 
Quinta felt it necessary to insert “and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada 
went up” to pick up again the thread of discourse. Exactly the 
same type is the interpolation “but King Solomon shall be blessed, 
and the throne of David shall be established before Yahweh forever”’ 
of the Shimei threat in vs. 45. 

The next important ‘‘Deuteronomistic’? interpolation is in 
8:15-26 and 50b-61, the second being absent from the Chronicler. 
The passages are too long for quotation, and we can only note the 
characteristic expressions, ‘David my father” (D.22b); “choosing 
a city that my name may be there”’ (D.14); “establish my word”’ 
(D.6); ‘walking in thy ways” (D.2); ‘as it is this day” (D.11); 
“keeping commandments” (D.3); all of which are absent from the 
Jeroboam story, as well as the less important “‘there shall not fail 
thee a man” (D.8); and ‘‘a heart perfect’? (D.15). It is quite 


206 Tue AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


obvious that these pious expressions have nothing in common with 
the incantation which forms the core of the chapter. 

Equally ‘‘Deuteronomistic” is 9:3b-9, with its ‘put my name 
there’; its ‘“‘walking before me’’; ‘“‘keeping my statutes” : 
“David”; “other gods” (B.29); ‘which I gave” (B.13); “there 
shall not fail thee” (D.8); “proverb and byeword”’ (B.80); “‘aston- 
ishment and hissing’ (B.52); “cast out of my sight” (B.51); 
“brought evil” (B.54). The same is true of 11:9-13, with its 
“other gods,” ‘fcommandments,” ‘‘ David,” ‘Jerusalem chosen,” 
“angry” (D.21), while in 14:21b we have the city chosen and the 
putting the name there which indicates that this as well as vss. 22-24 
is a later addition to the annals of the original editor. 

It isnot until we reach II Kings 17:7—23, 34-41, that we again 
have the familiar phraseology. The contrast with the matter of 
fact manner in which we are told how the Samaritans came to 
worship Yahweh by the narrative in vss. 24-33 is of a most striking 
character. Again we have our old friends ‘other gods”; ‘walking 
in the statutes’’; ‘‘under green trees and upon high hills”’ (D.30); 
“idols” (D.33); ‘testified’? (Driver 193); ‘provoke to anger” 
(D.26); “do evil in the sight”? (D.20); “servants the prophets”’ 
(D.39); all of which have already been shown to be post- 
Septuagintal, as well as “angry” (D.21); “removed from sight” 
(B.51); ‘observe to do”’ (B.49). From the tone it is clear ‘that 
they were not written until the Samaritan schism had become acute.’’! 
If, now, we recognize that this section is earlier than the adoption 
of the Pentateuch by the Samaritans, since “the Samaritans wor- 
shipped images and did not observe the laws of the Pentateuch,’” 
then the date of the Samaritan Pentateuch must be so late that its 
evidential value is practically nothing. With this too fits well its 
close agreement with the present Massoretic text as well as the 
undoubted influence of the Septuagint.3 

The writing of the “ Deuteronomist”’ is further continued in 
18:5b-7a, breaking the annals with ‘‘commandments,” ete., and in 
21:2-16, where we have the “‘name placed in Jerusalem,” “evil done 
in the sight of Yahweh,” “provoking to anger,” “choosing out of — 


1AJSL, XXX, 34. 
2 Robertson Smith, 0.7. in Jewish Church, 398. 
3 Further study must await the article on the Pentateuch. 


THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 207 


all the tribes of Israel,” ‘‘servants the prophets,” “doing evil above 
all that were before him,” “making to sin,” “unto this day,” “‘idols,”’ 
of which six are proved post-Septuagintal by the Jeroboam story. 
In 23:3, the ‘‘commandments”’ show the hand of the “‘ Deuterono- 
mist,’’ and it is probable that the entire story of the discovery of the 
Law and the Passover has been worked over. Vss. 25-27, with 
their “Jerusalem which I have chosen,” “‘my name shall be there,”’ 
“with all his heart,’’ all phrases missing in the earlier form of the 
Jeroboam story, as well as other “‘ Deuteronomistic”’ expressions, are 
clearly an addition. 

Nevertheless, it would not be scholarly to lay the same stress 
on these results obtained by conjecture. To do so would be to deny 
the whole force of these articles, that conjecture on the basis of 
vocabulary is far more unsafe than a consideration of the manu- 
script evidence. Omission in first class manuscript sources, which 
cannot be otherwise explained, is strong evidence indeed, and when 
this is confirmed by the repeated recurrence of the same formulae 
in these omitted sections, we have practical certainty. When we 
detect these expressions, especially when several of the most char- 
acteristic occur together, and even more when they occur in sentences 
and phrases which break the context, we may with considerable 
certainty place them in the same group. On the other hand, the 
occasional appearance of the less characteristic phrases of .the 
“Deuteronomist’’ does not prove the passage to belong to that 
reviser. It is not impossible that some of these passages in reality 
do belong to him, but such attribution must largely depend upon 
the subjective judgment of the individual scholar. Nor should we 
be surprised that some of the phrases of the “‘ Deuteronomist”’ are 
found in sections which we must attribute to the editor of the 
earliest Book of Kings. That editor, as we have seen from the 
testimony of the Jeroboam story and of I Esdras,! was certainly 
pre-Septuagintal, and, for that matter, he must date from before 
the time of the Chronicler. Still, that time can hardly be more 
than a century earlier. Writing under somewhat the same environ- 
ment it is little wonder that the two should have had a certain 
number of phrases in common. Yet, the more we study these 


9 66 


1AJSL, XXX, 32. 


208 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


phrases, the more clearly does it come out that they have a distinctly 
different ring from those which we must attribute with certainty 
to the ‘‘Deuteronomist.’’ Certainly, we must distinguish, on the 
evidence of the Chronicler and of the Greek translators, between 
the editor of the Book of Kings, with his dry annalistic character 
and his interest in the purely political history, and the “‘ Deuterono- 
mistic’’ reviser, whose religious formulae are so frequently missing 
in the Greek or in Chronicles. That we cannot always draw the 
boundary line with exactness is no argument against the essential 
truth of the division. One of the chief reasons why the historian 
in other fields has looked with distrust on the results of the “higher 
criticism’’ has been the attempt to differentiate documents where 
the criteria for such a work have been lacking. 

It is now our task to reconstruct, so far as possible, this earlier 
Book of Kings. To do so, we must first throw out those passages 
which we have seen must be attributed to the ‘‘ Deuteronomistic”’ 
reviser with a greater or less approach to certainty, as well as those 
insertions which later crept into the text, and then we must rearrange 
it according to the Quinta. It is probable that our reconstructed 
form will be still somewhat too full, but in this study only those 
passages have been cast out which with certainty could be called 
post-Septuagintal. 

Our Book of Kings should begin with 2:12 of the present Mas- 
soretic arrangement, following the division of the Lucianic text, 
the margins of M, 158, and 245, the Ethiopic M, the fathers Diodorus 
of Tarsus, Theodoret, and Jacob of Edessa, and seemingly also 
Josephus.! The book should include the following sections in about 
the following order: 2:12-24a, 24c-33a, 34-35, 351-44, 46; 3:2, 
4-6a, 7bd, 8-9, 11-12a, 13, 15-28; 4;..10:1-10, 13; 3:1; 9:46; 
5:1-16; 6:1; 5:17-18; 6:37-38, 2-3, 14, 4-10, 15-36; 7; 13st 
21, 19, 20, 28-45, 47, 46, 48-51, 1-12a; 8:1la, c, 2c, 3b, 4b, 5-11, 14, 
27-41a, 42c, 5a, 12-13, 62-66; 9:10-14, 26-28; 10:11, 14-22; 
9:15, 19-22; 10:23-26; 4:2lab; 10:27—29; 11:1a, 3, 16-2, 4, 3b, 
7, 5b, 8, 6; 12:24a-2; 13; 14:19-2la, 22-31; 15:1-3, 7-384; 16:1- 

1So0 Thackeray, Jour. Theol. Stud., VIII, 262 ff.; cf. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien, 
ITI, 189f., for the opposite view. The ‘‘ Deuteronomistic’’ interpolations in the first 


part of chap. 2 show that the present arrangement was in use when that reviser did his 
work. 


THE EARLIEST Book or KINGS 209 


lla, 12b-14, 15b-28, 28a-h, 29b-34; 17-19; 21; 20; 22:1-40; 
Mpengssetci-lia, 180-d;)2; 3:4—17: 6, 24-33; 18:1—2151,.17— 
23:24, 28—25:30. 

It is the misfortune of anyone who attempts to reconstruct a 
Hebrew text that he must use the current numeration, and this at 
once gives the impression that he is wilfully tampering with the text. 
It therefore must be constantly borne in mind that this tabulation 


is not, save in a few cases, the result of conjecture. In the vast 


majority of the changes or omissions from the received text, we are 
simply following the Greek translations, which witness to a text cen- 
turies older than that given by the Massoretes. And this text 
makes much better sense. This we have seen in detail in individual 


-cases. But only a complete retranslation of the original Book of 


Kings, such as it is hoped later to produce, can make clear the full 
force of this argument. 

Thus we must admit that there was a thoroughgoing revision 
of Kings after the Septuagint was produced and that it is to this 
revision that the so-called ‘‘Deuteronomistic”’ additions to their 
text must be attributed. In the earlier article it was suggested 
that this revision took place ‘‘as a consequence of the renewed inter- 
est in the history of the earlier kingdom excited by the rise of the 


-Hasmoneans.”! It must now be pointed out that evidence for this 


revision exists. 
Prefixed to II Maccabees are two letters. Whether they are 
authentic or not is a disputed question which it is not our business 


-to consider nor is it vitally important for our problem. One thing 


is certain, that they have no organic connection with the history 
which they precede. The first is brief. It was evidently prefixed 
to II Maccabees because of its reference to the troubles from the 
time of Jason, but its true reason for existence is in the desire of 
“the Jewish brethren in Jerusalem and Judaea’’ to persuade the 
“ Jewish brethren in Egypt”’ to introduce the feast of the Dedication. 
The resemblance to the undoubtedly authentic Passover papyrus 
at once strikes the eye. It has two dates, 143 B.c. in the midst 
of the letter, and 132 B.c. at the end, if indeed this reading is correct. - 
Both cannot be true and both may well be interpolations. Whatever 
Anat XXX 20, 


210 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


the date and however we may decide the question of authenticity, 
it is clear that some Jews in Palestine wished to introduce the feast 
into Egypt. 

The second is from the Jews, the Council of Elders, and Judas 
to Aristobulus, the “tutor” of King Ptolemy, and the Jews in Egypt. 
It is therefore a very formal and solemn letter. First, the Egyptian 
Jews are told of the death of the persecutor Antiochus IV which 
would date the letter, if genuine, to shortly after 164. Then comes 
another attempt to introduce the feast of the Dedication into Egypt, 
which fits very well with this chronology, but not at all with either 
of the two dates in the first letter. Then, in furtherance of this 
desire, we have the story of an earlier purification by Nehemiah, 


his hiding of the temple utensils, and a number of references to the - 


dedication of Solomon. Thus far there is nothing to differentiate 
it from the preceding letter. But now comes this most significant 
statement: “‘And the same things were related both in the archives 
and in the memoirs of Nehemiah; and how he, founding a library, 
gathered together the books about the kings, and the prophets, and 
those of David, and letters of kings about dedicated gifts. And 
in like manner also Judas gathered together for us all those writings 
that had been scattered by reason of the war that befel and they 
are with us. If therefore ye have need thereof, send some to fetch 
' them to you.’?! 

We may doubt the authenticity of this letter, and we may suspect 
that Judas did not have the leisure in his brief and troubled leader- 
ship to collect the sacred books. Whether we accept or not, one 
thing is clear. A second purpose of the writer or writers was the 
introduction into Egypt of the ‘‘ books about kings, and the prophets, 
and those of David, and letters of kings about dedicated gifts.” 
Yet to assume that none of these was already available in Egypt 
in Greek translation is to go contrary to all the other data we have. 
Demetrius, who wrote before the end of the third century, seems to 
have used in his history of the kings of Judah a translation of Kings, 
as he certainly did of Genesis; Eupolemus used a Greek Chronicles 
hardly later than the supposed date of this letter; and barely thirty 
years later the author of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus knows Kings 


1TI Macc. 2:13-15. 


THe EARLIEST Book or KINGS PAM 


tas part of the “Prophets,” and the ‘other writings” are already 


well known in translation. If we refuse to accept the authenticity 
of this letter, that simply places its date later and makes it the more 
certain that the Egyptian Jews already had Greek translations. If 
they already had translations, what was the purpose of this letter? 
Only one answer seems possible. The text on which the Alexandrine 
translations were based was not “‘correct’’ according to the standard 
of Jerusalem and this is an attempt to introduce that standard text 
into Egypt. 

There are hints, though only hints, that connect this letter with 
our ‘‘Deuteronomistic’’ revision. The most important is the use 
of mpoorayyara, ‘‘statutes,’” in both letters, 1:4; 2:2. There are 
also several reminiscences of I Kings, chap. 8. Agreements are 
found in do£a tov Kuptov, vededn, €x Tov ovpavov, and Ovata. None 
of these are particularly characteristic. We may also compare eyxal- 
vispov with evexarncev, but Kafayiac8n is obviously different from 
NyLacev. ; | 

Now for the final summing up of the case of Kings. We have 
shown, by the aid of the different Greek versions, that the present 
Hebrew text varies widely, both in order and in content, from that 
which was before these translators. We have seen that, while there 


has been a series of progressive additions such as are to be assumed 


in the case of any manuscript history, yet the additions and changes 
as a whole bear a common impress which makes us confident that 
we have to do with a deliberate revision. We have seen that Chron- 
icles, even in its present corrected form, supports this contention. 
Finally, we have actually discovered a passage which shows us this 
new edition in the very process of being forced upon Egypt. Thus, 
by our discovery of this latest, post-Septuagintal edition of Kings, 
we have added to the literary history of the Hasmonean period a 
historical work which throws as much light on the thought of the 
period as does that of the Chronicler for the one just preceding. 
On the other hand, we have freed the book from these later additions 
and have so recovered the earliest form of what we may with justice 
call the first edition of Kings. To be sure, it is quite possible that 
the “Deuteronomistic”’ reviser has corrected other passages which 
we do not now suspect, but such cases are probably rare as his 


212 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL ‘OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


language is so peculiar that we can easily isolate it. Equally char- 
acteristic is the language of the editor of the first Book of Kings. 
Unlike the later reviser he gives us almost nothing of himself and 
still less of the thought of his time. His dry, colorless style has 
transmitted to us the greater part of what we know of the non- 
religious history, and if our present more secular age is at last begin- 
ning to understand the life of the Hebrews as a whole, it is in no 
small measure due to his method of epitomizing. Unlike the 
‘““Deuteronomist,” whose only interest lay in religion, he seems to 
have made his main purpose the supplementing with political facts, 
taken from the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and 
Judah, of the religious or quasi-religious stories which he incorporated 
entire. These earlier documents it is not our purpose here to discuss. 
It is enough that we have isolated them from their later additions, 
and that we have come to understand the character of the two 
main editions of the book. 

The strongest argument for such a revision as we have postulated 


is to be found in the fact that such revisions can be proved for other: 


books of the Old Testament. In the case of the Chronicler it has 
already been shown that, in the very short section where we may 
check the present work by I Esdras, “two long sections of great 
interest are entirely missing, a serious dislocation covering several 
chapters has taken place,’’ and there are many minor changes as 
well;! that there are, in the short space where we may compare it 
with Kings, two harmonizations with that writer ‘involving not 
merely changes of the text, but the addition of facts of real impor- 


tance.’”’?’ We have also had reason, in the parts where Chronicles. 
is not paralleled by I Esdras, to believe that we do not have always. 


the original text preserved to us. 

The Hebrew Samuel varies from the Greek in general only by 
the usual scribal accretions. Only in the earliest part do we have a 
few recensional additions such as “unto this day” in I Sam. 6:18; 
the “‘tent of the meeting” in the interpolation of 2:22b; the use of 
the ark for the ephod in 14:18; and the frequent addition of ‘ cove- 
nant” to “ark” in 4:3 ff. ~But there is one section where the Greek 
proves the addition of a story to which that much abused word 


WATS EX See : 7D ote 
2 Mote the bw: doers Be 4 are inn Aa i eae see 


THe Earuiest Book or KINGS 213 


“midrash’’ can be applied with much more truth than to the Jero- 
boam story. The B text omits 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55—-18:6a, 10-11, 
17-19, 29b-30. As has long ago been seen, these verses are “frag- 
ments of another account” of David and Goliath, ‘‘a popular and 


less accurate version of the story, which must once have been current 


in a separate book.”! Unlike the interpolations we have been 


studying, the story is clearly old as is the language, but nevertheless 
it is not authentic history and it is an interpolation which was 
introduced into the Book of Samuel after the comparatively early 
date of the translator of I Samuel. 

There is a double translation of Judges whose problems demand 
our study”? and there are more problems in Joshua. But it strikes 
us with amazement to learn that some of the most serious questions 
are concerned with the Greek of the Pentateuch. Especially is 
this true in Exodus where the great majority of the codices omit 
28 : 23-28, while 36:8—39:43 are given in a totally different order 
from that of the Massoretes in all but five manuscripts and three 
late versions. Detailed study of this phenomenon must come later. 
Here we are only concerned to note that, even after 250 B.c., the 
time when we must assume that the Pentateuch was translated, 


it was possible for the Jewish scholars to radically change the most 


sacred of all their books, the Law. If the Samaritan Pentateuch 
follows the Massoretic order in this place, then here again we have 
evidence that that edition was post-Septuagintal. Nor are we sur- 
prised to find other traces of an earlier and shorter edition. The 
great manuscripts, BSA, as a rule, follow the Hebrew fairly closely, in 
fact, the superscription at the end of B is ‘‘according to the LXX.” 
But this is not true of some of the minor manuscripts and some of 
the versions, notably the Ethiopic and Sahidic, which so regularly have 
the shorter text that we must assume that they represent a regular 
recension. Cases are rare where anything like the original text seems 
to be preserved, for all appear to have been more or less conformed 
to the hexaplaric text such as is found in Codex B. Yet the lacunae 
of one manuscript supplement those of another and by collecting 
them together rather remarkable results may be secured. As a 


1 Robertson Smith, 0.7. in Jewish Church, 127. 
2 Lagarde, Septuaginta Studien, 14 ff.; Moore, Judges, xliv. 


214 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES 


single example, we may note that practically every word in the Flood 
and Covenant story which has been assigned by the critics to the 
priestly narrative is missing in some manuscript or version.! 

In fact, there is hardly a book in the Old Testament which does 
not to a greater or less extent show revision in post-Septuagintal 
times. The very large amount added in later times to Job has been 
well known since the discovery of the original extent through the 
Sahidic version. All the prophets exist in fairly early translations 
and here we have a long series of such post-Septuagintal additions. 
Most numerous and most instructive are those to Jeremiah, amount- 
ing to one-eighth of the entire book. We can trace in detail the 
expansion from translator to translator and can see that here the 
most serious revision was post-Christian.2 The Book of Esther 
represents the extreme stage in this process of re-editing. That a 
long series of additions was made to the Greek and that the Hebrew 
midrashes were spun out still farther is quite well known. What is 
not so well known is the fact that there are few passages indeed in 
the “original’’ Hebrew which are not missing in one or other of the 
various recensions or translations of this book.’ 

Thus we see that revision of a more or less serious type and of a 
date later than the earlier Greek translations can be proved for 
practically every book of the Old Testament. That such revision 
must be recognized in any future study of the literature or history 
of the Hebrew people is clear. Investigation of the problems which 
arise whenever the Greek is compared with the Hebrew must await 
a later series of articles. 


1 The next article in the series will deal with the problems of the Pentateuch. 

2 The material has already been collected by Mrs. Olmstead and will soon be pub- 
lished. , 

3 Cf. the material collected by Paton, Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of 
W. R. Harper, II, 1 ff. The results are so complicated that it is almost impossible to 
tabulate them clearly. 


\ 





o 


; ‘ 
e 
+ 
rt ans 
A) ee 7 
} 
i he 
4 + .* 
id § 
? a 
4 5 
e¢ . 
> 
‘ 
x 
‘ 
‘ 
¥ 
* 
* 
‘ 
’ 
‘ 
- 
' 
t 
- 
’ 
i 
ri 
. 
‘ 
. 





(@ 














